| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
May 23, 2009 - 4:52pm
#1
Interesting papers.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
" In our group's research -- which lies at the intersection of psychophysics, human hearing, and high-end audio --
Interesting indeed. I admit to not having read the entire paper: Do they say what sampling rate would be sufficient?
>>> "Our recent behavioral studies on human subjects proved that humans can discern timing alterations on a 5 microsecond time scale," <<<
I could not agree more, Geoff, with your comment "That one is even better than the first."
Why on earth would anyone be surprised that we (humans) can discern such timing alterations ? That IS the survival mechanism which we have inherited through evolution. To take information (a reading) every second (or millisecond, or microsecond) and compare it with the information from the previous reading. How else would the earliest of creatures have known whether any potential predator had moved to the left or to the right, or forwards, or backwards, was moving parallel or was staying stationery ? If they were not able to compare one 'reading' with the previous 'reading' and with the 'reading' before that ?
Also, another sentence from that article should START every discussion on sound, audio and listening !!! I.e :-
>>> "Many misconceptions and mysteries surround the perception and reproduction of musical sounds." <<<
How many times does it have to be repeated ? "We are not even close to knowing everything."
Regards,
May Belt.
I've read a paper very much like this one before, only it was an AES conference paper and it was done about 30 years ago.
I's actually a study in the audibility of frequency domain effects of time delays.
Take two audio broadband signals, one the same as the first but delayed a bit. Mix them together either electrically or acoustically in a very coherent way. High frequency components of the signals will be appreciably phase shifted by the time delay, and create non-flat frequency response by either adding or cancelling when they are mixed together.
I did an ABX test of this for a delay of 11 uSec and had no problem getting positive results maybe 20 years ago. I presume that 8 uSec wouldn't be that much different.
I believe that in a similar test about 10 years earlier, my friend actually could hear time shifts that were substantially smaller than this, but he heard them because they caused non-flat frequency response. Note that this paper does not seem to measure the non-flat frequency rsponse caused by mixing the two delayed signals.
The paper also seems to make one of the more common mistakes that people who lack sufficient experience with digital, and that is the idea that a digital signal can only properly resolve signals that different by amounts of time equal to one or two sample periods.
The actual ability of a digital signal to resolve two signals is actually more like one or two sample periods divided by the unique number of levels that can be coded.
For example, a 16/44 digital signal can resolve two signals where one is the other time delayed, by something like 22 microseconds (sample period) divided by 65,536 (number of different signal levels you can code with 16 bits). This is 0.000000000335 seconds or 0.000335 microseconds or 0.335 nanoseconds.
Combining your thoughts here with Arny's explanation of digital resolution of time, one has to ask what the hearing mechanism outputs in pulse frequency to the brain. I'll bet that the frequency is not in the MHz region, limited by the depolarization and repolarization time of the nerve.
Human hearing has an enormous dynamic range of more than 120 dB. how many discrete levels are sound are there in that system, I do not know. It would be an interesting calculation, if no one else has already done so, to see what the temporal resolving power really could be.
(Edited for spelling)
Ever play back part of a movie in your head? That's takes quite a bit of processing power when one considers the number of frames per second and getting them all synchronized, etc., even for a short clip. One wonders if the "film clip" one remembers is stored in memory in one cell or multiple cells...that's a lot of information for one cell, even for a 5-second clip. And if multiple cells are involved how is the playback coordinated? How is this POSSIBLE?
goeff,
I wondered too about what memory is made of. A few decades ago, I remember reading that the latest research then was that a single unit of memory (if that was the terminology) was made up of a seven amino acid sequence (if I remember correctly). How that relates exactly to what we are discussing, is not clear. Since I have not followed-up on this area since then, it still remains a mystery to me.
What is interesting is that I was able to identify as identical, a particular recording broadcast over FM through a monophonic table radio as the same version (conductor and orchestra) that I listened to on LP at home through a hi-fi system in stereo. I did this by remarking (to another person in the room) that the piece playing on the radio sounded like that conductor and that orchestra, before the announcer said what it was at the end of the piece. Memory is intersting!
WTL
That doesn't surprise me at all.
You were likely picking up on numerous other clues as to whose performance it was eg. tempo, phrasing, articulation all of which can be discerned sufficiently through a low end radio.
Of course, it would be more enjoyable through a better system
(Edited for spelling)
Yes, WTL, THAT (stationary/stationery) is one of those spelling stumbling blocks for me. I can never remember which is which !!!!!!!!!!
>>> " Memory is intersting! " <<<
Is it my turn now ????????? Interesting - (Edited for spelling, May) !!
OK, back to memory being interesting.
Geoff's quote :-
>>> "Is what one remembers stored in one memory cell or multiple memory cells. And if multiple cells are involved how is the playback (of the film clip) coordinated? How is this POSSIBLE?" <<<
This is an area which intrigues me considerably. IF separate but multiple memory cells, then how do they know their place in chronological order ? Because they DO !!! How ?? We KNOW what happened all through today, all through yesterday, the days before - in chronological order. I think, with each reading (sensing of what is going on) there must be captured a changing time co-ordinate along with the memory - but there is no visual clock - so there must be an invisible (changing) clock (changing time co-ordinate) which is registered along with each memory - to define it's place in chronological order !!!!
Even past memories are in chronological order !!! Chronological order of memory was/is absolutely necessary for survival purposes.
>>> "one has to ask what the hearing mechanism outputs in pulse frequency to the brain. I'll bet that the frequency is not in the MHz region, limited by the depolarization and repolarization time of the nerve." <<<
Not only the depolarization and repolarization taking place ALONG the auditory nerve (cell to cell) but the depolarization and repolarization taking place ACROSS each individual cell of that auditory nerve - all carried out by electro-chemicals (positive and negative ions) !!
ALL part of the 'hearing mechanism'.
Over the years, at various times, in various Hi Fi magazines, there have been published articles describing the hearing mechanism. Interesting articles, yes, informative articles, yes, but the ones I have seen have pages and pages describing the actual ear (from the outer ear, through the middle ear, through the inner ear) and then, at the end, in just one or two sentences the article would say "And, at the base of the inner and outer hair cells, at the junction of the auditory nerve, the sound (information) is transferred to electro-chemicals for it's journey along the auditory nerve."
That is IT !! Two sentences devoted to such a complex and additional journey !!
But, what happens to the information, travelling along the auditory nerve, IS STILL "sound information" !!
As I said, "We are not even close to knowing everything."
Regards,
May Belt.
Memory cannot exist without time; perception is flow.
Which is why we have such difficulty remembering dreams. It is considered that dreams come to the conscious mind in one single temporal shot/flash and the shot is a reverse mirror image.
The auditory system maps a detector with about a 30dB dynamic range onto the 120 dB dynamic range by using active compression.
The loudness tutorial at www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm addresses this to some extent, as do several of the tutorial sections on human hearing.
Of course a 44.1kHz/16 bit system can resolve time to well under 5 microseconds. So something has gone wrong and as quoted, without surrounding context, the quote looks fundamentally ignorant of the basics of sampling theory.
Thanks jj! It's good to have a real expert on the board. I, and evidently most of us, would not be able to properly assess the papers.
This, of course is predicated on the idea of the clocking system and the D/A having no jitter characteristics. Jitter they have, for various reasons and in compounded ways. Thus, perfection of 16/44 is not available and 16/44 does not take into account stereoscopic human function.
Mathematically cute it may be, but it falls down in the real world.
Quite interesting the second paper first shows the careful design of the test equipment, the enormous math involved, using ultra sonic frequencies involved.
The time frame involved is years and was published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics, so a real professional. Of course a professor at South Carolina University. Credentials.
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf
From his second article:
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers...ng--Kunchur.pdf
Superior equipment was used, in actual experiments, to remove limitations that other experimenters use. Of course limited quality equipment leads to erroneous results.
Of course this information leads to previous dbts being unrealiable and not reference quality.
Of course 16/44 does not reproduce over 22khz which is the author's point in his testing, and which he proved.
As one can see from reading the articles, the author's experiments are quite extraordinary.
Quite so. The effect, however, is entirely measurable, and creates an uncertainty well under 5 microseconds.
Wrong again. Try to remember that I have tested and measured a lot of DAC's in my time, for a variety of reasons.
If there is a problem with "stereoscopic function" it is not due to jitter for any reasonable DAC. The noise level required in order to create such uncertainty would be audible at a distance with a normal volume control setting. (Yes, really, at a distance.)
There are a few issues at 44.1 that might, just barely, concievably cause a problem (that would be probably under detection levels at 48 and gone at 64kHz, but as far as I know they have not been directly tested for. That would take a 96kHz DAC with a gradual filter slope.
The "what" is hard to explain trivially, it has to do with the effects of linear-phase filters (now common in DACs) interacting with the ear, which is more or less minimum phase, and nonlinear.
But as far as I know, nobody has tested this, and it is not a binaural (btw, the term is binaural, not stereoscopic) phenominon.
As I said before, showing 10 microsecond ITD to people is pretty much trivial, at, of course, 44.1 sampling rate. People just her it, and ABX it pretty easily at way over chance rates. Been there, done that. Haven't had a solid hit at 5 microseconds, but then again I haven't tried to actually train someone to hear that. The point being that I AM using a real DAC, and real hardware, and the delay is audible at 44.1 kHz. So there is really something wrong with the way the results are stated here.
I'm sorry, but what this suggests, at least in the context you've presented it, is that the author does not understand that one can pretty trivially detect 10 microsecond ITD's at 44.1, and I'm pretty sure 5, just not having tried to do 5 in a serious fashion.
If you look at the angular resolution of hearing, the 5 microsecond number for broadband pulses is about what you would expect.
But the quote above PRESUMES that you need "ultrasonic information" in order to resolve 5 microseconds at 44.1kHz and you simply do not need any such thing. And that looks, at least from the quotes above, like a flat-out misunderstanding.
True. Such temporal resolution depends on the "coincidence detector" circuitry of the medial superior olive and on the phase-locking of the signal(s). Interestingly, it is mostly effective below 3kHz.
Kal
I'm sorry, but what this suggests, at least in the context you've presented it, is that the author does not understand that one can pretty trivially detect 10 microsecond ITD's at 44.1, and I'm pretty sure 5, just not having tried to do 5 in a serious fashion.
If you look at the angular resolution of hearing, the 5 microsecond number for broadband pulses is about what you would expect.
But the quote above PRESUMES that you need "ultrasonic information" in order to resolve 5 microseconds at 44.1kHz and you simply do not need any such thing. And that looks, at least from the quotes above, like a flat-out misunderstanding.
I am sorry, but he is pointing to the fact that, along with other authors, that wide bandwidth, above 20khz, affects what we perceive. And his paper mentions two factors necessary to get accurate results.
1) The quality of the equipment used, including parts, which author Dr. Kunchur clearly states is necessary.
2) Wide bandwidth above 20khz is necessary to obtain all the perception possible when listening to music. 16/44, 22khz does not cut it.
tells us little if anything, especially the quality of the audio signal.
Since your paradyme won't accept that, here are some other links that may help the public.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/10860/
Mike Story of dCS
Takeo Yamamoto of Pioneer
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm
Tsutomu Oohashi's research
The evidence is overwhelming.
What proof do you have that we don't need above 20khz? Have you personally performed any testing above 20khz?
The "overwhelming" evidence shows signs of elementary flaws. Ergo it is not even evidence. Your insistance on their obviously flawed logic (at least as you have quoted it) carries no weight, and suggests that you, yourself, fail to understand that having a time resolution of 5 microseconds,or one microsecond, does not require a sampling rate of over 44.1kHz.
Demanding proof of a negative from me is sheer malice. You know enough about scvience to know better, I'm sure, too.
One point is that Dr. Kunchur is talking about reproducing frequencies above 22khz for ultimate fidelity, which a 16/44 cd player cannot do. That is the problem. By the way, from Wikipedia:
As quoted, the citations you provide show nothing more than a misunderstanding of basic sampling theory.
I've been following this thread with interest because, initially, I couldn't see how you could get 5 us resolution from 44.1 KHz either. But now that I see the bit-depth is a factor too it makes perfect sense. Thanks j_j. I'm not much of a "math guy" so that was an eye-opener for me.
--Ethan
As quoted, the author's inference is just simply wrong.
Finding 5 microsecond sensitivity in no way "requires" any higher sampling rate at all.
The length of a cycle, or half-cycle, has little to do with the time resolution available from a properly filtered DAC.
If you have access to this, try it yourself. Create a 10kHz carrier gaussian pulse 5 with a 1 millisecond sigma.
Shift the time of the gaussian window by 1 microsecod.
Look at the two. Visible difference.
If you do that experiment at 44.1 with 10 microsecond shift, and compare simultaneous with one channel shifted, you'll hear subtle, but reliable shift in sound in headphones.
That you can do if you have matlab, or octave, or more or less any kind of linear algebra package, or even a 'c' compiler. If you have those, try it.
If not, well, I point back to the books referred to above.
If you do have this kind of stuff available, I would suggest that you try 5 microsecond shifts, and try to ABX it. If you do, you've just confirmed the guy's findings, INSIDE the 20khz bandwidth.
Part of my problem with his "report" is that energy above 15kHz or so barely makes it into to the cochlea at all, except at HIGH levels, and that everything 15kHz and above gets analyzed on the same first millimeter of the basilar membrane. So, even if it did get to the basilar membrane, etc, it is going to have very similar effect to frequencies already there under 20kHz.
And that's not supposition, there's 100 years of work behind that.
As quoted, the author's inference is just simply wrong.
Again you cannot refute the evidence presented, just a simple the author is wrong.
If that is the case, even though one can discriminate 5us differences, you believe 45.4us is good enough even though musical information is lost. (Higher frequency response means shorter micro seconds.) So you seem to believe in magic more than science.
So you believe that no resolution is lost using 45.4us compared to 5us, which is what you admit one can differentiate. Hmmmmmmm. Nyquist theorem still holds no matter how much you believe in the tooth fairy. 5us requires a very high frequency response and the only way to get it is to raise the sample frequency, upping the 20khz analog FR, thus reducing the cycle time to as close as 5us as possible.
Differentiating something is not the same as maximum fidelity, which is what the issue is and has been. My previous links/authors demonstrate this.
Again, not maximum fidelity as other authors have demonstrated. "Subtle" will become more pronounced as 45.4us is reduced.
The rest is PR and to lead away from the issues. Again, have you personally tested ultra high frequencies and their effect? You keep dodging that question so I assume you have not.
It is becoming quite apparent why you continually refuse to sign your legal name to your posts.
So, you will simply assume what you wish, no matter what I tell you?
There's no point, then, this isn't dialog, you're just repeating the same invalid, obvious ignorant objections that it appears the author you quote (at least as cited here) held.
If you wish to, please get the author to contact me here, or via my ieee address, which you can easily find from my page here, and I'll chat directly with the author to find out what they actually meant.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to bother arguing with you, you are refusing to accept some of the most basic facts about sampling, both practical and theoretical, and repeating the same incorrect misunderstanding over and over and over.
You have no evidence whatsoever to claim that "musical information is lost". You keep citing (45.4 microseconds) when that number is meaningless beyond stating that it is the inverse of the sampling frequency. It has NOTHING to do with time resolution beyond being a small part of the equation, NOTHING to do with frequency resolution inside of the 20kHz bandwidth, and NOTHING that you have any evidence for to do with "musical information".
You ASSUME that it does. Now you need EVIDENCE to back up your ASSUMPTION.
You have not mentioned or provided links. If you had tested, you would have thrown it into my face. Just dodging the issues or changing the subject to within 20khz, which is not what the issues were at all, but beyond 20khz.
Again dodging the issue, above 20khz and reducing the time cycle of the analog audio signal. Information is lost, see more below.
The links I presented provide the evidence, if you actually bothered to read them. But even if you did, harmonics above 20khz are missing in 16/44, so slopes/waveform have changed since 20khz is the highest harmonic possible, vs the real thing where harmonics reach 100khz and higher.
Misleading does not make you look good JJ, or whoever you are. And if you believe that no information is lost above 20khz, use a scope and check the instrument/musical harmonics above 20khz, or check Caltech. You obviously have don't understand or have never performed even that measurement.
I gave a complete explanation of what 45.4us meant in an earlier post. Misleading the viewers again are we J_J?
As mentioned earlier, we are dealing beyond 20khz, the links I presented in an earlier post provide the evidence.
Your post is nothing more than simple PR.
This would seem to be a simple one word, "yes" or"no", reply that doesn't require insulting anyone or having anyone outside of the forum contact you, jj.
Is it possible you cannot answer in a manner that would confirm your position?
Why insist sas must be responsible for your "test" while you are not responsible enough to answer a simple "yes" or "no" when you are presented with a very simple question? You must remember whether you've done tests on ultra-high frequency information that would be relevant to this thread. Don't you remember that?
So why dodge the question?
FWIW, Oohashi's work has never been replicated in any other lab, has been subject to some criticism for his procedures and inferences and has not had any significant impact on the field of auditory physiology.
Kal
This is a classic attempt to "shift the burden of proof". Hence I shall not participate in it.
The claim is made by the paper, and is cited here. From there must come any proof.
That's just avoiding the question, fella. No one is "shifting the blame" as you are trying to say we are. What "blame" would we be shifting? So far no one is blaming you for anything. We're just interested in what you know and how you know it. Why get so defensive about all of this? Why get so combative? It's just an audio forum. There's no need to start tossing around accusations.
And if you answer the question that you have made the experiment, then what are we to blame you for? Nothing from what I can see. So why not answer the question? Possibly because you can't do the experiment? You insist others fall in line with you and your demands but you cannot do as they ask and you won't even say you cannot. Now that's shifting the blame, jj, or whoever you are. It seems you're playing a game of shifting the reader's attention away from the topic at hand too. The isssue is not "below 20kHz" and the question remains, did you do the experiment?
Why not just answer the question and put this to rest rather than dragging it out? If you did the experiment, then you only need to say so. If you didn't do the experiment, then we would expect that you will try to not answer the question with any diversion you can think of since that would indicate you don't really have any proof for your other "science".
So far, it appears you have not done the experiment but simply won't admit to that.
Why not?
You're set on diverting attention away from the question when a simple one word answer is all that's required to settle this issue.
If you had done the experiment (proven by a link would be nice) and arrived at an answer that supports your other statements, then you could answer in the affirmative. I suspect sas would be quite happy to discuss your results.
Of course, if you have no results because you've never done the experiment ...
If that were the case, then I see no reason how you could realistically say, "Yes, I've done the experiment and here's the proof", when there is no proof and no experiment.
Since you won't say "yes", there is ony one conclusion anyone can reasonably make, you're talking out of your butt. ABX and all of it, out your butt!
Yep, no wonder you won't sign on and admit your allegiances. This does call into question all of the other "scientific" things you've posted on this forum. You want to tell everyone else they're simply wrong but you have no proof to back that up and no links to any proof.
You're grandstanding.
Why would you want sas to tell the author to contact you in private? The author's not here, why should sas hunt him down so you can talk off the forum? This sure sounds like another dodge from you, jj.
jj, just answer the question without insulting anyone. Have you done the experiments sas suggested? Where is your proof?
"Yes" or "no"?
Where's the proof?
We're waiting.
Oh, grow a pair. Do you honestly believe no one can see through that passive-aggressive tripe?
The author submitted his proof. You discount it. That's fine, but you should back your commentary up with more than playground antics.
Another interesting topic turned to shit.
This is a classic attempt to "shift the burden of proof". Hence I shall not participate in it.
The claim is made by the paper, and is cited here. From there must come any proof.
I agree. This is a classic attempt to "shift the burden of proof". And you ARE participating in it, because YOU are the one trying to shift the burden of proof. The proof is the paper, and you are claiming its conclusion is false. Thus the burden of proof that Dr. Kunchur's years-long acoustical study of the effects of the 22k sampling limit on human hearing is invalid, is upon YOU. You haven't even tried pointing to links of studies by yourself or others, that emphatically prove Kunchur wrong.
I think what we're seeing in this debate is the true reason for the rift among members of this forum (radical pseudoscientists vs. reasonable audiophiles). On one side, we have people like Ethan and Xenophanes (and God knows who else) who have shown that they trust in your opinion completely, because they don't have the technical ability or apparently, free will of their own, to question you. So as we saw, they clap when they see you respond to a technical argument. Not unlike seals, mind you. Not ever realizing that you simply don't have the technical ability yourself, to refute the many sources of evidence you've been given that show that Red Book is not adequate for high fidelity. In fact, when pushed to, you can't even answer the basic issue of this debate, whether 16/44 can provide complete fidelity, with any evidence of your own. You fall back on your usual "it's true because I say so". Which btw hasn't worked for you when using it for nearly 20 years of such debates, so I don't know why you think that will work now?
You should know that not all readers are as easily misled by your obfuscations, as are Ethan and Xeno. You like making appeals to authority "jj"? Ok, let's. According to you, your subject, SAS Audio Labs, Takeo Yamamoto of Pioneer, Tsutomu Oohashi (he's in Wikipedia if you don't know who he is), and Dr. Kunchur, a professor at South Carolina University who spent years on his acoustical study and somehow managed to get himself published by the Acoustical Society of America through the American Institute of Physics, are all "fundamentally ignorant of the basics of digital sampling theory". You however, an anonymous nobody who's been trolling audio forums forever and won't even sign his real name to his posts, are telling us that you know more than all these guys put together. None of which even understood the basics of digital theory, before being given funding to undertake acoustical studies on it, you would have us believe.
And your evidence of that their studies are flawed? Well, you have none. By the number of people who've asked you to present such evidence, I can see I'm not the only one who would love to see YOUR studies of ultrasonics that disprove theirs. But no, you refuse to even answer the question as to whether you have ever studied the effects of ultrasonic frequencies (>22k) within the range of human perception in digital sampling studies. Because as it is now obvious to all, you clearly haven't and do not wish to admit this.
You admit you don't understand the article in question, and yet you continue to try to argue that no information is lost above 20khz, because this is the limit of human hearing, wrt music reproduction. And of course, presenting hard evidence to support your argument is not necessary, because it's "already understood by all who understand anything about audio". And if that lack of evidence in your responses is not accepted or acceptable? Well, then you come up with this brilliant exit strategy to get out of this debate you are losing:
"There's no point, then, this isn't dialog, you're just repeating the same invalid, obvious ignorant objections that it appears the author you quote (at least as cited here) held.
So, you will simply assume what you wish, no matter what I tell you?
I find this statement very arrogant. You have already been proven wrong recently in another debate on capacitors with another member of this forum. You were also unable to provide evidence then to back up your opposing claims, or do the honorable thing, and admit you were wrong on a technical matter. So I don't know what makes you think anyone here, apart from your lickspittles, are expected to assume whatever you say is correct, without providing hard evidence to back up your claims. I think the problem is more like this: you will simply assume what you wish, no matter what you are told. In which case, you are free to remain ignorant of audio science that doesn't align itself with your prejudicial beliefs. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say it's expected of you.
Why are you lying? I said that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.
The rest of your dishonest rant, along with that of the stalker Frog, who hides behind his nome-de-liar, is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the facts.
[quote
The author submitted his proof. You discount it. That's fine, but you should back your commentary up with more than playground antics.
The quotes here indicate no more than that the author makes a false inference about sampling. No more, no less. That is hardly "proof" of any sort. I am not making a claim here, I am pointing out visible errors in the parts of the author's claims that have been quoted here. If the author has more to say on the issue, it has not appeared here.
It is sad that folks like you, Frog, and Vigne see fit to deliberately derail discussions and engage in what seems like deliberately false professional accusations. The deliberate well-poisoning here is quite obvious, you know.
[quoteI find this statement very arrogant.
Quite the hypocritical statement from you.
And a lie to further your childish, dishonest attempt, again hidden behind your nome-de-stalker of "Michigan J. Frog". Your cowardly, dishonest behavior is what I have come to expect from a good number of audio "enthusiasts".
Edever wrote: The author submitted his proof. You discount it. That's fine, but you should back your commentary up with more than playground antics.
The quotes here indicate no more than that the author makes a false inference about sampling. No more, no less. That is hardly "proof" of any sort. I am not making a claim here, I am pointing out visible errors in the parts of the author's claims that have been quoted here. If the author has more to say on the issue, it has not appeared here.
It is sad that folks like you, Frog, and Vigne see fit to deliberately derail discussions and engage in what seems like deliberately false professional accusations. The deliberate well-poisoning here is quite obvious, you know.
I agree. What is quite obvious is, you're the one "poisoning the well" here. Don't lie and say everyone else is "derailing the discussion", when it's clear this is your only reason for responding. After all, your last comment in this debate was to tell SAS there was to be no discussion! What's "sad" is that you have to lie so much to try to leave debates you are losing with some shred of professional dignity, and that you think it's not plainly obvious to objective readers that this is exactly what you're doing?
Since you took issue with Kunchur's article, I and others have asked you to provide evidence that Kunchur's study is invalid, and to support your claim that he doesn't even know the basics of digital sampling. Don't lie and say you didn't make any claims in this thread, jj, when it's obvious to anyone who read you that you made several. You're like the worst liar ever, because there wouldn't even have been a debate here if you hadn't made a claim to the contrary! Also, don't lie and say Edever made "deliberately false professional accusastions", when all he did was ask you to provide evidence to back up your claim. You were pretty arrogant in your confidence that you were far more knowledgable than Kunchur, stating his study is a farce because he doesn't even understand basic sampling theory.
So don't backpeddle either now, and say "if the author has more to say on the issue, it has not appeared here". Those are "weasel words". Since you're the one trying to tell us the author is wrong, it is incumbent upon --you-- to read his article. BTW, I know you already know this, but it bears stating: it is intellectually dishonest of you to ask your opponent to have the author of his source contact you to explain his own study!! Not to mention that it even further emphasizes the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
Now stop with the playground antics j_j, and back up your commentary with solid evidence that links to studies supporting it.
Why are you lying? I said that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.
Good lord, j_j. Calm yourself down. Take your heart medicine. You're putting yourself at risk, here, and I'm sure no one wants that. Clearly, from where I'm sitting, Jan simply misread what you wrote, and that's an honest mistake. You're very quick to accuse people of "lying" to you. That's no way to get along, J. Now play well with others, or I'll have to report you to the principal!
The rest of your dishonest rant,
along with that of the stalker Frog,
"The stalker Frog"?? LOL! You're the one denigrating me to someone else, and you came to troll this forum in the first place because of me, and you think you're credible calling me a "stalker"? LOL! The problem is, you call everybody who responds to you a "stalker", j_j! Maybe this is something you should be taking up with your therapist, not Jan. One would think after 20 years of trolling audio forums to find new converts for your pseudoscientific religion, you'd figure out the basic concept of audio forum discussions.
who hides behind his nome-de-liar,
There you go again with the accusations of "liar" and "dishonesty". Every 2nd post I seem to see from you, you're either calling someone a "liar" or "dishonest". Not a single time, have I ever seen you prove your accusation. Let's see you do that, for once. Can you at least provide evidence of your false accusations, if you can't provide evidence of your false claims about audio? Take the above. You must have implied I'm using a pseudonym 25 times now, in as many ways; "pseudoname", "nome de liar" (sic), "pseudonime"... Well unlike you, I don't hide behind a "nome de liar" (and it's "nom" by the way. If you insist on writing in French, learn to spell). Prove that I do, and provide hard evidence of such, or retract your accusation. Along with one of those groveling apologies you keep demanding. While you're at it, prove that you're not hiding behind a "nom de liar" yourself. It's no wonder you have not been able to earn any credibility on this forum, with all these ridiculous unfounded claims and accusations you keep throwing at people.
is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the facts.
Which ironically is exactly what you're doing with these rants. I'm sure this is exactly your intention here - to avoid debating the facts of the article being discussed, and going into tirades, issuing personal attacks on people instead. I guess this is supposed to distract us from the --fact--- that you have failed to provide evidence to support your claims against Dr. Kunchur. Jan has asked you a question, and instead of responding, you pretended you didn't understand what he meant, and you accused him of being a "liar" because he got a couple of words mixed up. My response asking you to provide facts (evidence), well you COMPLETELY IGNORED that part of it, didn't you? Instead, (as per usual), you responded only to what you thought you could succesfully defend yourself on.
Now that I have "unmuddied" the facts, let's see if you can stick to the topic at hand, and provide the evidence to support your claims that several of us in this thread (me, Jan, SASAudio, Edever, etc.) have been asking you to do. If you can't do that, have the honesty to admit you were wrong, and try to bow out gracefully next time, instead of coming down with another meltdown, kay?
Here are some of the relevant parts of my response to you, that you deliberately left out and are avoiding, in order to muddy the waters with personal attacks, and avoid debating the issues, so you can avoid supporting your own erroneous statements:
You admit you don't understand the article in question, and yet you continue to try to argue that no information is lost above 20khz, because this is the limit of human hearing, wrt music reproduction. And of course, presenting hard evidence to support your argument is not necessary, because it's "already understood by all who understand anything about audio". And if that lack of evidence in your responses is not accepted or acceptable? Well, then you come up with this brilliant exit strategy to get out of this debate you are losing:
The proof is the paper, and you are claiming its conclusion is false. Thus the burden of proof that Dr. Kunchur's years-long acoustical study of the effects of the 22k sampling limit on human hearing is invalid, is upon YOU. You haven't even tried pointing to links of studies by yourself or others, that emphatically prove Kunchur wrong.
Quite the hypocritical statement from you.
No, quite the accurate one. If it wasn't, you'd have been able to prove that so by now.
And a lie to further your childish, dishonest attempt,
I get the impression you're using a template here, that features a list of words like "lie", "childish", "dishonest" etc., that you just pick willy nilly to throw at your opponents, when you can't respond to anything they're saying. Let's face facts: if what I wrote was a "lie", you'd have proven this so by now. You accuse everyone of "lying" to you, yet you have never once backed that nonsense up either, with proof. Anyone can go back to the cap thread and see that what I wrote about your failure to back up your claims in that thread as well, is correct.
again hidden behind your nome-de-stalker of "Michigan J. Frog".
Yet another "lie" from you. Prove your accusation.
Your cowardly, dishonest behavior is what I have come to expect from a good number of audio "enthusiasts".
Uh-huh. And trust me, that is what audio "enthusiasts" all across the internet discussion forums you have invaded, have come to expect from you. An ad hominem rant is what I have come to expect from you, whenever I ask you to provide evidence to support your claims. I'm chuffed to bits to see that others are now learning what I know too well about debating you. Stick around "j_j", this is only going to get better!
My, my! Jan Vigne doesn't know what the burden of proof is, and you don't know what an ad hominem argument is!
No, I didn't get "mixed up". I knew what I was typing when I typed it and expected exactly the response I received from jj - or whoever he really is.
So, how's it feel, jj, to have someone take what you put in print and turn it on its head and make it into something it is not? Not good, eh? But I notice you're quite good at doing just that? You take what has been posted and turn it around with your own words and then expect your "opponent" (since you see this as serious combat and not an audio forum where knowledge is shared) to spend their time getting around your obfuscation. Another classic "jj dodge". Friend (and I use that term loosely), your tricks are all used up and you've only been here a month. Now, you have nothing left to fall back on because you are going to get called on this BS every time you try it. You have developed a following on this forum and its not the sort you want. You want to calll us "stalkers", we want you to tell the truth and not run away like you did in the capacitor thread when you were, um, let's say "less than factual". We are here to keep you honest, jj - are whoever you are and whoever you are affiliated with - and we are not going to let you weeney out of a discussion several of us find very interesting.
As I see it, sas is already ahead of you by four furlongs with a good head of stem and plenty of "go" in him and you are fading fast around the first corner. And you just keep huffing and puffing that the author doesn't understand digital theory. Maybe if you stopped blowin' so hard, you could answer sas' questions. Otherwise, you're fading into oblivion faster than anyone I can remember. There won't be anything where we listen to you because we'll already know you have nothing to back it up with. Then there'll be no reason for you to stay here, eh, jj - or whoever you are? And you'll slink back to your anti-audiophile forums to lick your backside.
My money's on sas.
Now my intention here is not to turn this thread to shit as edever says you are doing. My intention is, as edever so quaintly put it, to get you to grow a pair. If you have a pair that could be grown, that is.
Your tactics are always the same and you rely heavily on them, jj - or whoever you are. There's no need to recount them here, Frog has done an admirable job even going back over twenty years of your calling people "stalkers" when all they want is a truthful answer from you and not your usual BS.
This discussion could be interesting, but not if you fall back on calling everyone who disagrees with you "stalkers" and trying to avoid simple one word answers when your "opponent" has you on the ropes.
You know what we are wanting from you, jj - or whoever you are and whoever you are affiliated with - so you know the drill. No more twisting of words on your part and I won't twist yours.
A "yes" or "no" answer and proof. Or, as edever put it, stop with your schoolyard antics.
The ball is in your court, jj - or whoever you are - are you going to whiff it again or can you hit it this time?
"Yes" or "no"?
Proof?
We're waiting.
My my, you had to copy/paste Frog's entire post just to make it look like you had something to say, Xeno?!
You poor little kid, you. You have nothing to offer so you cling to jj - or ... well, you know - like a small child clings to his mother's skirt for security. It's quite unattractive, Xeno. How'd you ever get tied up with this gang, Xeno? Did you just figure it was easier riding the tails of the people who were against everything and could hear nothing?
Two things, Xeno; 1) you should be back at the other forums telling all your anti-audiophile trolls that jj - or whoever he is - is getting the crap kicked out of him over here on the Stereophile forum - isn't that your purpose here?, and 2) wipe the end of your nose, Xeno, you've got something brown all over it and it smells like jj.
Yet, by ignoring the facts, and engaging in ad-hominem behavior, by ignoring the actual claims and issues, and by supporting the Frog's deliberate derail and intentional defamation, you have done exactly that.
The problem remains: Nothing quoted to the author, NOTHING WHATSOEVER, supports the contention of ultrasonic signals being required. NOTHING.
What we see, in the material quoted, is a mistaken linking of time resolution to sampling rate. No more, no less.
THAT is the issue. The issue is not what resides in my underwear.
It is classic that you have also taken up the dishonest feigning of "we don't know who you are". Everyone here, including you and Frog, knows exactly who. Frog has admitted, repeatedly, that he is here to intentionally disrupt discussions in persuit of his personal vendetta. You appear to be doing the same, but without admitting your malice and vendetta.
Give it up. You have no evidence that ultrasonic signals are required, GIVEN THE QUOTES YOU HAVE CITED. That's how it is. Live with it. Accept it.
You do notice, Kal, that there is absolutely no response to the facts?
You waste bandwidth quoting my entire post just to utter one foolish line to me? How very trollish of you. Especially since you've already trolled me with this same baseless accusation, and you never proved it that time either. So you're batting 0 for 2 now. You've got only one chance to redeem yourself, "xenophanes". Let's see you prove both of your contentions against me and Jan. Maybe it'll help hide the fact that your idol can't ever prove any of the tripe he spouts on this forum, when challenged to or not. If you can't prove your claim (and I already know you -won't- be able to), then I think it's high time j_j got himself a smarter lickspittle. Because you coming along just to make vapid and obviously incorrect statements on his behalf, is only illuminating his folly and his failures on this forum.
Yes. But that's OK with me.
Kal
The fact is you have not answered a direct question that would bolster your up to now lack of proof for anything you've stated. "You are wrong" or "he is wrong" or "you are ignoring facts" won't get you anywhere without proof. You are a scientist, no? Then you should realize what is required for proof of any such claim.
Or, is it possible you are not really a scientist but more someone who talks a good game and then bluffs his way through grandstanding attempts to stop all conversation when proof of your claims is required?
Me? I'm a curious observer, here, jj - or whoever you are - and I'm interested in the facts, not unfounded opinion from someone who cannot substantiate their claims of superior knowledge. So, bottom line here, I haven't ignored any facts because I haven't presented any facts regarding digital rates or hearing. I have only taken the logical course of preferring to believe the person with the most facts I can find in this thread. At this point that would be sas and you would be the one tossing around unfounded claims and insults to anyone who stands in your way of escaping unharmed.
Little man, you misconstrue and misdirect as your only agenda. I am not supporting Frog and I don't think he is trying to derail any thread unless you have already done so by refusing to provide evidence to support your own statements. Therefore, the problem is with you. And the problem is with your unwillingnees to use anything other than bullying tactics. The problem is not with Frog or with me. Those are the facts.
The issue is you can't prove what you say. And you won't say why.
Obviously, if you had done the exeriment to prove your claims, then you would have said so by now. So, since you cannot understand the issue reamins one of "above 20kHz" response and you did not perfom any experiments to study response at higher frequencies but rather simply stopped thinking when you arrived at an answer that satisfied your limited curiousity, you have now arrived at the point where you have no - zero, nada, zippo - credibility.
I can only conclude you really know very little about the subjects you post about with such great authority Subjects that are only then undermined by your lack of proof for anything you say. I can only conclude you talk before you think and then try to work your way out of where you've got yourself by bullying and insulting.
sas wins. You loose.
But I have not cited any quotes. Are you that confused on this sunject?
I've only asked you to answer sas' questions and address the issues of above 20kHz response. Which you have not only ignored but now you are trying to bring me into a discussion in which I am only an observer seeking information.
Apparently, you have no information to provide.
sas wins again. You loose again.
Unless you'd like to provide proof of your experiments to discount sas' contentions.
"Yes" or "no"?
Indeed, you should since you've lost this battle.
I thought Frog had responded to this with satisfactory rebuttal.
However, I'll give it a try.
Kal, in your opinion, would this mean the outcome of the experiments are untrue?
You do notice, Kal, that there is absolutely no response to the facts?
I don't know about Kal, but I noticed it. I noticed it coming from you, in response to my simple request that back up your arguments against the Kunchur article. A request made by several others here, which you completely ignored. You actually snipped out the entire text relevant to the debate in this thread, and to avoid discussing the facts of this thread, you only addressed one line where I made reference to another thread (citing that you had repeated the same behaviour there of not providing evidence for your arguments!).
You are the one who started defaming my character, ignoring the facts and engaging in ad-hominem behavior. And your next response? Accuse everyone else of engaging in the behaviour you are clearly engaging in. This is why I find it hard to believe that you are not knowingly projecting your own failures here on to others, in the hopes of distracting readers from your performance in this debate. Because once again, you are being dishonest (this time to Kalman), in light of the facts. The "deliberate derail" of this debate came from you, my friend. When you refused to respond to SAS requesting evidence to support your arguments against him, and instead wrote this to Jan, to avoid having to prove your claims:
"J_J" wrote: This is a classic attempt to "shift the burden of proof". Hence I shall not participate in it.
This is you trying to bow out of the debate ('derailing the discussion' as you call it), when the burden of proof was upon YOU. Then, instead of simply trying to provide evidence requested, you went on a meltdown against everyone asking you to support your contentions. Starting with a ridiculous accusation against Edever of "deliberately false professional accusations", when all the dude did was ask you to provide proof of your arguments. Then you went on a rant against Jan, when he asked you nicely to provide proof for your arguments. Then it was my turn. After I asked you nicely to provide proof for your arguments in this debate, you went on another fine rant against me. Accusing me of hiding behind a "nome de liar".
What does my name have to do with the "facts" of this debate? Then when I asked you to stop engaging in ad hominem attacks and start supporting yourself in this debate (or leave), you did neither. Instead, you had your sockpuppet come and tell me you weren't engaging in ad hominem behaviour.
So in your own words, by "ignoring the facts, and engaging in ad-hominem behavior, by ignoring the actual claims and issues put to you, and by deliberately derailing the debate and intentional defamation, you have done exactly what you accuse everyone else of having done".
The problem remains: Nothing quoted to the author, NOTHING WHATSOEVER, supports the contention of ultrasonic signals being required. NOTHING.
Give it up. You have no evidence that ultrasonic signals are required, GIVEN THE QUOTES YOU HAVE CITED. That's how it is. Live with it. Accept it.
Again, you use the weasel words "quoted to the author". SAS provided us with links to the articles. Like I said, if you are going to argue against the articles, read the articles you are arguing against. Instead of providing us with further examples of your ignorance, maybe you will have something of greater intelligence to say against the articles being debated. But remember to follow scientific protocol, j_j. If you take issue with any of it, the burden of proof is upon -you- to provide -hard evidence- to back yourself up. Your mere opinion is not evidence. Articles in all three links cited provide evidence that ultrasonic signals are required for complete fidelity. That is how it is. Live with it. Accept it. If you are privvy to information that you think can instantly undo the years of studies by doctored professionals (unlike you), using highly specialized equipment, and the thousands of dollars poured into them, by all means, you are encouraged to provide links to such evidence.
So far, you haven't done jack squat except provide us with more of your usual squawking about "professional accusations" against you, clucking about the names people are posting under, when they ask you for evidence, and complaining that you couldn't understand the arguments in the article from the two lines of text quoted from it. At one point, you even demanded that the debate couldn't continue until Steve got the author of the study to contact you personally and explain his article to you, because you were too lazy to read it, or perhaps didn't have the wherewithal to understand it. I have to say, this is just the sort of thing I would expect from Krueger, when he's losing a debate.
THAT is the issue. The issue is not what resides in my underwear.
Let's keep it clean, j_j. This is a family forum. And really, that's a hell of a lot more information any of us needs to know about you.
It is classic that you have also taken up the dishonest feigning of "we don't know who you are". Everyone here, including you and Frog, knows exactly who.
Knows exactly who what? Who you are? Yes, I think that's fair to say. But only because I showed who you are, in my expos
Pages