| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| 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
How's it go?
A "sniffling, sniveling, on your knees, groveling for forgiveness, admitting your own weaknesses, yada yada apology"?
Pull one out, jj, you must have done this before.
We wanted facts and you gave us BS.
Now we want our apology.
I gave you facts. You wanted to shift the burden of proof. I don't see any point in saying anything further on the matter.
Let's talk facts, then. Here are the facts in a nutshell:
ncdrawl brought attention to the 3 articles on "Psychophysics, auditory neurophysiology, and high-fidelity audio", by Dr. M.N. Kunchur. Who has a list of colloquiums and seminars he has presented on the subjects of high fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, longer even than the number of times j_j has called someone on a forum of being a "stalker", or accused them of "malice" and/or having a "vendetta" against him. Predictably, this person who calls himself "j_j" then joined the discussion on page 2. And in another stunning display of dogmatic arrogance, claimed not only to have superior knowledge to the doctored authors of the studies, but that they did not even understand the basics of digital sampling frequency. This is when the discussion started getting interesting.
But when simply asked if he had done any studies on the effects of ultrasonic frequencies on the perception of human hearing (see lead-in), "j_j" dodged the question as many times as it was asked of him. Naturally, this caused people to start getting annoyed with him and his debating tactics, and to suspect that he was being intellectually dishonest, to avoid looking like he didn't know what he was talking about. (Which is exactly what happened recently in another thread, where this time, he pretended to be an expert on xover capacitors, and again ignored all requests to support his contrary assertions). It was assumed by everyone here, on the basis of his evasiveness, that "j_j" had not done any such studies, that could even begin to counter Dr. Kunchur's careful work.
When asked if he could simply point to other studies as evidence that would support j_j's arguments against the Kunchur studies, j_j evaded this request as well. In an attempt to provide some sort of defense for his claims, j_j argued that whatever was quoted in this thread from the article (in his anger and confusion, j_j misattributed Jan as having quoted from the article, when Jan did no such thing), was wholly incorrect. But besides not being able to read the thread messages properly, it appears j_j never even read the articles that ncdrawl had posted that are under discussion here, despite nevertheless dismissing them in their entirety, and is only trying to win an argument against out of context quotes. Even so, not doing very well on that front. In another stunning display of self-projection, j_j then shifted the burden of proof on to everyone else, asking them to prove his arguments wrong, when he never established them in the first place.
So without offering a shred of proof, "j_j" the self-professed expert on all matters audio (who does not even sign his real name to his posts), conveniently dismisses no less than 5 studies offered to him(!), that show the importance of musical information in the ultrasonics. Which btw, echoes what vinylphiles have been saying since the invention of the CD, about the limitations of Red Book. But j_j dismisses all this objective and subjective evidence of the importance of the reproduction of frequencies above 22k, as you point out, in a very grand fashion. With a lot of smoke, mirrors, bluffing, false indignation, false accusations, name-calling, defamation, crying, operatic histrionics, and some slightly disturbing paranoid rants that make you wonder if he's playing with a full deck. But... this is all in a day's job for j_j, I think.
In the lead-in to his studies, Dr. M.N. Kunchur writes:
Many misconceptions and mysteries surround the perception and reproduction of musical sounds. Specifications such as frequency response and certain common distortions provide an inadequate indication of the sound quality, whereas accuracy in the time domain is known to significantly influence audio transparency. While the upper frequency cutoff of human hearing is around 18 kHz (or even lower in older individuals) a much higher bandwidth and temporal resolution can influence the perception of sound. Non-linearities and temporal complexities in the auditory system negate the simple f ~ 1/t reciprocal relationship between frequency and time. In our group's research -- which lies at the intersection of psychophysics, human hearing, and high-end audio -- we measure the limits of human hearing and relate them to the neurophysiology of the auditory system. These experiments also help to define the criteria for perfect fidelity in a sound-reproduction system. Our recent behavioral studies on human subjects proved that humans can discern timing alterations on a 5 microsecond time scale, indicating that that digital sampling rates used in consumer audio are insufficient for fully preserving transparency.
I guess readers can readily discern for themselves who won this debate and has offered the "burden of proof". The anonymous "j_j", better known as a forum "DBT-phile" and pathological skeptic, or the several studies on human hearing in high fidelity audio, presented by the rather non-anonymous and highly credentialed university professor and doctored professional, Dr. M.N. Kunchur, to the Acoustical Society of America:
Temporal resolution of hearing probed by bandwidth restriction
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/Temporal-resolution-by-bandwidth-restriction--Kunchur.pdf
Probing the temporal resolution and bandwidth of human hearing ,
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers...ng--Kunchur.pdf
Audibility of temporal smearing and time misalignment of acoustic signals
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers...s---Kunchur.pdf
Surely even a Frog can see when level and comb filtering can easily lead to DL's in this setup?
I read Oohashi's papers when they came out and found a number of questionable issues in them. Long ago, I also wrote a little critique of them but I no longer have a copy. Nonetheless, I found them technically unconvincing. The lack of any corroborative evidence after all these years is also a concern.
As for your question, the experiments were certainly "true" in the sense that they were performed but I cannot say the results and/or the conclusions are "true" or "not true." What I can say is that they have not been accepted into the mainstream of sensory neurophysiology.
Note that what most people here see in these scientific papers are the conclusions which the experimenters draw from data and such conclusions are inferential. Scientists, however, pay greater attention to the methods, procedures and data.
(I seem to recall from the first paper that the initial funding for this research was provided by one of the big Japanese electronics companies but that attribution has not appeared in the later papers.)
Kal (speaking as a Neuroscientist, not a Reviewer)
If one notices article 3 which J_J refers to, Dr. Kunkur describes the room layout and damping materials used. J_J conveniently left out Dr. Kunkur's details. Try to be above board now. We have seen this tatic, leaving out critical information to mislead, used many times by the "scientists" on this forum.
The second article uses headphones.
You still have not answered the question of have you performed testing in the ultrasonic frequencies.
I also see you have not answered how one can accurately reproduce a 5us artifact, which the ear can detect and which requires a very high frequency bandwidth to properly reproduce when the maximum frequency response of 16/44 is only 22khz. As a matter of fact, the low pass filter will not pass the 5us artifact, or any artifact if it is above 20-22khz. Of course this means that any artifact of 20us (50khz origin), 33us (33khz origin) is not perceived. So much for 16/44 reproducing all the music since it cannot reproduce a 10us, 15us, 20us artifacts.
If you notice, J_Js experiment involved using two different channels with a 10us shift to create the artifact.
As I mentioned earlier, "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. " 3kHz is quite within the range of a 16/44 medium and this information can be found in most standard neurophysiology texts.
Kal
The answer for me is an unambigious "yes"
I've done extensive testing using numerous musical samples, some that I recorded, some from other sources, some even live. I've tested it a number of different ways using a tremendous number of different audio systems and different listeners. The first of these tests happened in the late 1970s. From time to time I repeat the tests from scratch, using different just about everything. Same basic results after 30 years.
IME a cleanly-implemented brick wall filter with a design frequency of 16 KHz has no general audible effect, except with a very few pathological musical sources.
The 22 KHz limit that is inherent in Redbook CDs is overkill.
This of course is at odds with any number of sighted evaluations that report mind-blowing differences with bandpass limits as high as 100 KHz or more. Somehow, I can live with that! ;-)
And what sort of test is this? Listening by ABX? Listening by one individual - you - who might not have much frequency response above the average level for a man of your age? Which I assume would be about 14kHz?
"Brick wall" filters have not received the best reviews from listeners, but I suppose you discount that information?
And please explain "pathological musical sources".
Hmm, innumerable tests over 30 years. Yes, most were ABX. It is the best thing around for that purpose. Still.
Try reading what I said - innumerable tests over 30 years. Innumerable test setups, innumerable listeners.
You've confused me with the self-appointed golden ears that seem to abound in the circles you seem to travel.
Two words: sighted evaluations.
IOW, bogus, totally invalid, why are we even talking about this?
I grew out of relying on sighted evaluations about 34 years ago. I recommend to one and all that they do the same.
BTW Jan, you might want to do the math and estimate how old I was 34 years ago.
One example is a traditional Spanish musical instrument that I encountered about 5 years ago. Its acoustic output is dominated by barely audible ringing in the 16-18 KHz range. In short, its not much different from testing with pure sine waves.
The reason why we can get away with 16 KHz brick wall filters so well is masking, not hearing thresholds. If you test with pure tones, you're avoiding masking, of which there is boatloads of in virtually every musical source that almost everybody listens to.
Every discussion involving hearing threasholds and "I could hear a sine wave at xx Khz" is perforce, invalid. Its not how we listen to music.
Hmm, indeed, this is most often (but as you say not always) true of instruments. Glockenspiels and cembalyms (sp) might have some trouble there, too, with some notes.
But in fact, the way the ear is known to work is "upward spread of masking". Now, the "excess spread" one can see at too-high levels does not apply here, but unless you have less than about a 12-15dB rolloff between 12khz and 20kHz, the 20kHz signal is most likely (the exact answer depends on the source) going to be masked.
In all of this tsuris, it pays to remember that everything over something in the neighborhood of 14kHz or 15kHz is detected on the same spot on the basilar membrane, effectively, and that right where the energy enters the cochlea. All the rest of the energy that enters the hearing apparatus has to go past that point to be detected.
Then your "proof" comes down to a belief in the validity of ABX testing.
Still.
And, if we turn this thread into yet another dog fight over ABX, what will we have achieved? Not one thing because not one reader will have been converted. Lurkers are running away from this thread as I type. No one is going to pay attention after your response to this post because they know what's coming.
Try understanding I don't read minds, particularly of a certain variety. No need to get snippy just because I ask a question, arnie, unless you are looking for another dog fight. Broad terms such as "Innumerable test setups, innumerable listeners" leaves a lot of wiggle room for someone who seems to always be looking to wiggle out of something.
No, I realize no one has said you have golden ears. We haven't even established what you can and cannot hear, which is why I asked the question in the first place. One of the anti-audiophile crowd would have us think what he can hear is totally irrelevant to the discussion when tells us what he cannot hear.
Your one claim is you can perform ABX testing. That, IMO, doesn't prove you have golden anything.
Are you going to continue to be insulting when you have not been insulted by anyone is this thread? It's only your second post here and already you've insulted the entire Stereophile forum several times. Back off, arnie. Are you here to discuss or are you here to start another fight?
Silly question, I know.
IOW, your "innumerable tests" are not worth much of anything for reasons already stated in, what is it, 30+ years of this BS?.
See? when you can so easily dismiss anything I believe in I get to totally dismiss anything you care to preach.
So, "Bogus!" right back at you, arnie. I would think even the novices here could understand preaching against sighted tests when discussing sampling rates is not valid science.
I see you are not hear to discuss anything. You are once again going to evangelize your little ABX/anti-audiophile ditty and, of course, you expect the same fight you're performed for the last 30 years.
What was it edever said? Oh, yeah, another thread gone to shit.
Thanks, arnie. Thanks a bunch!
When do you intend to grow out of being a troll among trolls? Or is what they say about you actually true? You live to be The Troll Among All Trolls?
So far everything I've read about you would appear to be less than what you really are, you are far worse than they say - and that's not easy from what they do say about you.
At this point I know as much as I care to know about you, arnie, next you'll want me figure out what sort of pajamas you wore 34 years ago. (Like you're not still wearing the same set.
)
Now that is remarkable! (And I know you'll be expecting this response since you do like to bait people.) How we listen to music is valid for one instance where you prefer to discount experience to reach your sought after conclusion but invalid in other cases where it would not assist you.
So, really what you're saying is how well you can hear has no bearing on how you arrive at test results. I asume that is due to your innumerable tests with innumerable listeners? And ABX?
You can't hear and I have no idea how well your "innumrerable listeners" can hear or whether they were given a fair shot at hearing and I have very little faith in ABX's particularly when we are discussing sampling rates, but that is your "proof" for everything you want it to prove.
You and jj. Because.
Why don't you try something other than "because I say so"? Since "science" doesn't seem to be present in any of your proofs and discounting anything done outside of a blind test is, then I have nothing more to go on than I did before you injected yourself into this coming dog fight.
It is coming, isn't it, arnie?
That's why you're here now, right" we're going to do battle over ABX's and sighted tests and "because I say so", right? I'm expected to accept what you say. For 47 pages of insults?
arnie, arnie, arnie! You're boring, arnie, very, very boring.
Err, isn't that just a WEE BIT strongly stated now? The tests are valid for tones.
Your point is that most music is not isolated tones at high frequencies. Ok. But this does not make testing with tones 'invalid' for testing with tones. It does make relating single-tone testing to music harder than it looks.
Having replied to Arny on his overstatement, now let's ask you, where do I find music consisting solely of tones between 15kHz and 20kHz?
In the context of music, it is in fact tough to find MUCH audible energy up there. Note, "much". If you note, I pointed out some instruments that might create problems. Percussion has quite a few instruments with lots of energy at high frequencies, but percussion is "interesting" because the level near the instrument is high enough to cause strong nonlinearities in the actual sound transmission through the air, which makes the question of "spectrum" into "spectrum at what distance?" and complicates the question a lot.
Furthermore, although it is not terribly germane here, it would be good of you to look up the transmission loss of 20% humidity air at 20kHz and 50kHz.
When you start to just make things up and claim other peopel said them, your malice and well-poisoning are showing, and nothing more.
Now, you've made some substantive, pseudo-factual claims about my hearing ability. As that reads directly on my ability to to my job (Chief Scientist of an audio company), perhaps you would be more specific and point out exactly where and when that you, personally, have tested my hearing. Or maybe you could answer a short, simple question, HAVE you tested my hearing yourself? ARE you even trained and capable of doing so correctly? (You might be, I have no idea of your professional qualifications.) Yes or no. Just answer the simple question, Jan.
Of course not just that.
Jan, you seem to be unfamilar with the fact that valid alternative scientific means strongly tend to produce consistent results.
So once we elminate the results of totally invalid methods like sighted evaluations, and we generally get pretty much the same results.
Also Jan, I'm quite sure that JJ's comments about "upward spread of masking" are completely over your head.
Stereophile didn't cover it, so its news to you! ;-)
Not only that, but I'd be totally surprised if you knew who Zwicker and Fastl were, let alone understood what they /wrote.
Bottom line is that we know what we know about supersonic audibility by a large number of alternative means, some based on sticking electrodes into sensitive parts of living beings, some based on dissection of small mammals, some based on listening tests that were blind but not ABX, and some that were even based on ABX tests.
They all say very complementary things. At this point Jan science isn't a one song show, no matter how hard you try, in your ignorance and arrogance, try to paint it that way.
Well, here we are with "well poisoning" and "malice" as arguments. Good job, guys. Another thread gone to shit. I now await the next 50 pages of insults.
I see you've stepped it up a bit to "look what I know, nyah-nyah!" If I don't know whoseywaht'sit from what'shisname, I'm unqualified for this thread. Ain't that quaint?
Now, jj - or whoever you are - I told you I wouldn't make things up if you didn't make things up. And there you are - making things up.
Bad jj, bad puppy!
Which fits your not-all-that-interested-in-anything-else needs. Sighted = bad, no difference = good.
Do you really suppose I'm about to believe someone who isn't here to educate anyone? You are back to the same agenda that you've preached since the day you arrived here, "because I say so".
You trot out your insults early and start battering away. jj won't admit he hasn't done any experiements which only proves has hasn't done any experiements and arnie insists anything sighted is wrong.
That's where we've come to in this thread and that's where any discussion ends because agendas now take over. I can see the other readers scattering now.
Thanks, guys, this has been sooooo much fun.
All the rest of the energy that enters the hearing apparatus has to go past that point to be "perceived"! And that is what you are all interested in eliminating. As May has stated what we perceive has been left out of the "science" of hearing which leaves out any opporunity for improving audio techinques. Now you are arguing for masking. If I get this right, that is a claim to fame for one of you - that you were part of the team that created masking techniques.
Uh-huh! No agenda to promote there. Yet you won't acknowledge your professional affliations?! Both sides against the middle, eh?
There's one thing I don't get at all from your position on sampling rates, why? Why argue against higher sampling rates? What harm could be done by higher sampling rates that makes you so convinced they should not be introduced into the digital arena? Even if you don't believe they have any benefit, why not introduce what does no harm on the off chance it might actually help - whether you think it will or not?
WhatEVER are you babbling about? This "eliminating" nonsense is simply some kind of hostile misunderstanding.
The "rest" that I'm talking about is all the stuff BELOW 15kHz. Eliminating that wouldn't do well, would it?
WTF is wrong with you?
Answer the question asked.
Answer the question, what do you think I'm trying to "eliminate", Jan? What ARE you talking about?
While you're at it, when did you measure my hearing in order to support your claim to fact that I can't hear well?
That's Ethan's line, j_j. Do not steal Ethan's lines. Acoustics / comb filtering is the only weapon he has left to do battle with against all the nasty "audiophiles" he has to deal with at his day job (aka the Stereophile forum). And believe me, he needs it.
What people need to understand here is Arnold is ignorant of the fact that serious researchers (ie. not Arnold Krueger) have studied the spectral content of musical instruments, and found ultrasonic acoustic energy as high as 100kHz, "and perhaps beyond" (analyses may or will be limited by the analyzing equipment). In fact, cymbals have been measured to have output in regions as high as 102k. Which corroborates what Arnie's "audiophools" and vinylphiles have been saying all along about how CD players can't properly reproduce cymbals.
Suffice to say, Arnold doesn't own an upsampler.
He will always dodge the question Jan, because as we have seen, there is little honesty in him.
From Dr. Kunkur.
This is what J_J doesn't want you nor the public to know Jan. Leave out critical infomation so as to manipulate/mislead to a false conclusion. We have seen this tatic used many times before here by other "objectivists/scientists". That is why you will never see proof, but plenty of hype about his position,
and no legal name will ever be posted by him, for possible ethical and legal problems.
I really don't think you should be demanding answers to questions from others, while you have deliberately ignored all the questions asked of you. So with that in mind, while you're at it, let's begin with when did you do studies measuring ultrasonics to support your claims against the articles discussed in this thread? And where are the results of those measurements?
You won't get an answer Michigan.
Read the hydrogen audio forum rules/forum. I soon got the sense that they are to put the opponent on the defensive by demanding proof while they demonstrate nothing. And what have we seen here. This accomplishes at least three points.
1) Keeps the converts in the dark so learning is stiffled. Can't let the subjects learn too much.
2) Easier to control someone, or recruited convert, who doesn't understand.
3) Allows them to fabricate any scenario, or leave out critical information so as to leave the subject with a false conclusion. Of course, we have seen this in the past with data being manipulated in order to mislead the audience/viewers.
Learned people are able to see the misleading comments that are made. That is why when they do comment, it is almost always worded with a "back door" (J_J understands this well since he worked for microsoft in the past) so they can slip away or redirect the meaning.
Some of this I learned from a Federal Investigator I know.
"manages to reach the cochlea"...
Your research assignment now is to figure out what that takes.
Now, make no doubt about it, at high (as in higher than you should be exposed to) levels, you certainly can detect the onset of untrasonics, etc, this is old news.
Find me where outside of a rimshot at 1 inch you will get that level in the real world.
By the way, the knowlege that this can happens via bone conduction is ancient news. You going to bolt your skull to the drum set, now? (btw, don't do that, it's bad for your hearing even if the drummer is accurate in where s/he hits the drum) The "news" is hardly useful unless you plan to do something of that sort. Of course, the other way to get bone conduction is to move to absurdly high levels. I wouldn't recommend that for what I hope are obvious reasons. (even if your transducers will do it, don't.)
When I see a duplication of the interaural claim that does not appear to contain an obvious mistake, then I'll be more interested.
But I find the 5 microsecond claim completely unsurprising, my expectation is that you can do it inside 44.1 or 48khz sampling. Certainly you can do 10 microsecond interaural delay distinction in a 44.1 system. It's not even hard to do this, using constant-delay pulses, even. By going to minimum phase pulses, 5 microseconds is probably (yes, this is speculation) not too hard.
Now, your sheer, absolute and obviously intentional dishonesty about "Legal Name" is noted as yet another outright lie on your part, and is noted as yet more fraud on behalf of your campaign of defamation.
Attempting to exaggerate in order to manipulate and mislead the public yet again J_J.
Interesting since sampling occurs 23us apart.
It is one thing to steal another's credentials, another to steal another's identity, legally speaking.
Plus the fact that you are so determined to keep arms distance from your own words, instead of embracing them. There is no reason for not posting your name unless you are worried of some consequences.
It's fact. I could well take your comments as endorsing that someone risk their hearing, btw.
I am still not responsible for your elementary misunderstanding of sampling. Look into "antialiasing filter", now, will you? I've already cited you two good beginner books.
Funny, I use the same name here that I've used for 30 years, so your "not posting your name" nonsense is just insane.
Let me give you a hint, my "nic" here is just exactly what John, or Kal, or Arny, would most likely call me if they walked up to me at a meeting. Your claims otherwise are either paranoia or deliberate defamation. You choose.
Prove it. So far we only have your word.
For the viewers, aliasing is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing
Yes, so you limit what is fed into a DAC well below the sampling frequency 1/2 is usually the minimum. So now you cannot even produce a 5us input pulse because it is filtered out.
It is not "insane" in an ethical and/or legal sense, which is what you are so concerned about, and desparately evading. Otherwise you would have no problem posting your legal name. Evidently you have something to hide. You might try taking law. Of course we know you already understand this.
By the way, Dr. Kunkur article is correct and you and arny are wrong.
You can trivially produce two longer pulses with a time offset of 5 microseconds, of course, which is what is actually NECESSARY. I'm not sure if I should attribute that particular play on your part to deliberation or not, though.
Edited to add:
And, of course, your two 5us pulses, offset by 5us, will maintain that offset after passed through the antialiasing filter that will broaden them quite a bit. Do you think ALL of your 5us pulse is going to disappear, or something? Again, you are referred back to Morrison for the basics.
Ridiculous. Your prating on this issue is utterly without ethics, morals, or reason. If anything, it's an attempt to invade my privacy.
Four points -
(1) it doesn't matter what sort of noises some instruments make, what matters is what we hear. Mr. Frog seems to believe that just because there's a reading light in my listening room, my audio system needs to have flat response through ultra-voilet! ;-)
(2) The paper in question is a derivative work. It shows no work of its own. It just references some well-known papers from the past.
(3) The paper in question isn't pulished or refereed, it isn't a conferences paper. Looks like a homework paper from a 100-level (that's Freshman, and Introductory for you non-college folks) psycholology course.
(4) Oh, and one of the cited writers (Risch) is a well-known fraud.
Suffice it to say, Mr. Frog knows not what he speaks of. I do in fact have an excellent general purpose upsampler, one that upsamples to sample rates to 10,000 KHz. IOW. 10 MHz.
Interesting since sampling occurs 23us apart. You also still have resolution problems as discussed earlier. Going in circles are we.
Really, you are claiming to be JJ Johnston, even in your home page which the public can see, and it is a public forum, so there is no problem nor privacy issue by posting your legal name. I just did. You are worried about ethical and legal issues.
But keep posting.
This link might help.
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/
In that sentence I was talking about your constant desire to play the wronged party as if that were going to stop the conversation you don't want to engage in. I was talking about your wild claims that someone is always doing you wrong like (do I need to use the word for you too?) a petulant little child in the back seat of the minivan. I was talking about how ridiculous you sound every time you try this gambit and how it goes nowhere - which, of course, is what you want since you have nothing else to offer.
And I really was wondering why it is so damned difficult for you to answer a very simple question.
Is this really the best you can do? Make things up, twist words and offer no proof for anything other than "because I say so"? Honestly, I was led to believe JA does know you from the work you've done and you do have some level of competence to display that might prove beneficial to this forum.
At this point I can only think JA knows you.
Someone says "BOO!" to you and you acccuse them of mailicious intent.
Good Grief!
Oh, for godssake, jj! After you've been caught and called out on your fumble, you cannot go back to the previous post and make ammends that CYA!
GO READ THE LITERATURE. I'm tired of this. You have to put this pulse of yours through the antialias filter. Yes? Yes, you do. That spreads it out. So it's at least two samples wide when it gets out of the antialias filter. Yes. Really. That's why that filter is so important. Yes, broadening the pulse IMPROVES the time response, by turning something doesn't meet the Shannon Sampling Theorem into something that does.
No, you're going in circles. It's obvious by now that you don't understand how sampling works. I'd be glad to explain, it is rather, to put it mildly, intuitively confusing, but only if you're going to listen.
Really now? Is that a threat or a promise?
So, you have claimed I have poor hearing. Where is your evidence? Do you have the expertise to make that claim? Do you claim to have tested my hearing?
Nope, don't think I claimed that. Where is your proof that I did?
We can do this for another 47 pages if you want.
I haven't fumbled anything. Retract your claim otherwise, or substantiate it, clearly and without further straw men, arguments from the excluded middle, invalid inferences, and the like.
You made the claim, you produce the evidence.
You can begin by telling us whether you've done the tests sas asked you about. If you won't do that, why should we believe anything you say since you only claim we are doing malice to you?
If I were you, I wouldn't even stay on a forum that is so offensive. I bet you only have to claim someone is being malicious half as many times over on the anti-anti-science forums.
Regarding subsample time delays.
Your homework is to tell me what the difference between the red and green traces in each plot are.
Btw, both are sampled at 44100 kHz.
And you have yet to answer my question, so Jan does not have to answer yours. Please don't make yourself look even worse by speaking out both sides of your mouth.
And maybe you should do some more basic research J_J. You might actually learn something.
Bother. Silly photobucket.
Now what nonsense are you on about?
Are you going to look at the plots I just posted or not?
I require that you stipulate that I have done a great deal of research on the subject.
Let's see, now, you want me to work for free, so you can abuse me some more? Oh, and perhaps let out some data that isn't in the public domain? Really, now, what are you, some kind of industrial spy?
Oh, and no, haven't seen any substantial evidence for "ultrasonic hearing" yet. Sorry. No. I've seen a few things that could be mistaken for it.
And you have not identified either the X or Y axis. I am sure you will fill in whatever you wish to "demonstrate" that I am wrong.
Such an amateur ploy. By the way, you still refusing to post your legal name?
You've claimed I've fluffed something.
But you refuse to say what.
First, say what.
Then provide some proof.
Or be known as doing no more than intentional derailing.
Well you know, the lurkers can see you plainly for what you are.
As is trivially evident TO ANYONE VERSED IN THE ART, the horizontal axis is samples, and the vertical ampltude.
Sorry to have to explain the obvious.
Now, what are the red and green traces?
I'll give you a hint, look at the filenames.
Edited to add: Um actually, I did identify the axis when I said 'sampled at 44.1 kHz'. Nearly fooled me there.
Now, what ARE those plots, and what do they mean for your contention that one can't create a 5 us or 10 us interchannel delay between two channels of a 44.1 kHz sampled signal.
Do tell, eh?
Indeed,but what's left out often is that the envelope of the signal on the basilar membrane above 3kHz also shows substantial interaural sensitivity.
It's been known since the 1930's or so, but for some reason people seem to mention only waveform, and not waveform envelope in an ERB.
Very old news. I've personally made recordings that make Boyk's plots look very tame.
They were made @ 24/96 and used extensively in some of the tests that I mentioned above.
Pages