| 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
What's left out of Boyks work, also, is the effects of air transmission.
Most of us don't put our ear into the violin or whatever, and most of us listen in a concert hall where the travel time of the reverberation gets up to on the order of a kilometer, too. (i.e. T60 of circa 3 seconds)
At 50% humidity at normal temperatures, your 20khz signal is going to be attenuated by about an extra 1.5 dB per 10 feet as compared to 100 Hz.
(that's extra attenuation, not 1/r^2 loss, of course)
Where's that get you in the back of the concert hall? What does it imply for reverb?
Let's talk 50kHz for kicks, now...
About .5 dB per FOOT. 10 feet, 5 db excess loss. 50 feet, down 25 db.
At 30khz it's about 3 db per 10 feet.
Physics is fun.
Air is a pretty lousy transmission medium, really, but it's what we have.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/atmossndabsorbcalc.html
Is a handy reference.
Hm, it's inferential. I'll accept you didn't mean it, if that's what you're saying...
Notice the jagged lines, the waveform should be smooth if one has sampled dithered, averaged etc properly. So his data/test/instrument has been tampered with. A good article for the public to read/graphs is by national instruments.
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3016
I will try to find more if I get time. By the way, anyone can name a file whatever they want and produce whatever X and Y axis terms they want. The fact you had to produce a jaggered line graph just demonstrates your lack of honesty to the public. By the way, one can check other graphs on this forum and they show smooth lines, so it is not the forum's fault.
It should be obvious why J_J has continually refused to post his legal name, for fear of ethical and legal issues. How can one be trusted when he has to distance himself from his own posts.
Can I assume they were in "fat mono," like like your choral recordings, Mr. Krueger? (See http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/2021 .)
Still waiting for your explanation why you couldn't hear that your choral recordings weren't actually stereo. :-)
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Actually this is what you posted in reply to Michigan's post.
First off, I love the way you guys exaggerate, "to have flat response through ultra-voilet!" That is funny.
Both his link and mine demonstrated that there are harmonics above 20khz which you and J_J attempt to minimize, and with good reason.
Harmonics really do go well beyond 20khz and Dr. Kunkur's papers are quite accurate that higher than 20khz is necessary for reproduction. Of course that makes J_J and your past work obsolete. You and J_J sure have motive to be defensive.
Dithering is irrelevant, and your presumption of expertise here should mean that you knew that when you said the above.
As to 'smoothed', you are looking at the direct, unfiltered output of a triangular-windowed DAC. No more, no less. At this level, no "smoothing" (which, by the way, is actually filtering, not "smoothing").
So, your objections are, each and every one, utterly wrong.
Nothing has been tampered with, the examples are generated mathematically.
Your intentional deceit is becoming obvious, as is the fact that you appear clueless as to what you have been presented.
I'll tell you what you have been presented with, then, since you obviousl do not wish to acknowlege it.
You have been presented with 12 kHz carrier gaussian pulses with a pulse width of 1/3333 second, sampled at 44100 samples per second, showing the differences between two pulses where in the (10 us) jpg one pulse has been delayed 10 microseconds. In the (5 us) jpg, the pulse has been delayed 5 microseconds.
In short, your insistance that one can not resolve under 1 sample in time is shown, from these simple, unfiltered plots, with no antiimaging filter (which would make things clearer, but there's a limit to what I am willing to program for free), to be completely wrong.
In short, the evidence is now before you, you are shown to be utterly wrong, and your only reaction is to defame professionals who are actually trying to help you extend your knowlege.
I would suggest that a sincere apology should be forthcoming from you.
At this point, it is obvious that your lies about "not using my name", etc, are deliberate attempts to deflect your complete failure in the understanding of sampling theory.
Once again, Morrison's "Fourier Analysis" by Wiley Interscience is a good book that any circuit designer could relate to the mathematics of, and learn just how sampling really works.
Rabiner and Gold's "Digital Signal Processing" is the old, out-of-print classic.
Richard Lyons "Understanding Digital Signal Processing" would help you out, and is a current introductory book.
Before you embarrass yourself further, it would be wise of you to go to these books. You will find there the same information I've just conveyed to you.
For that matter, you could go to Akansu and Smith's book on Wavelets in the introductory section, although it's a touch mathematical, but you might not like that one, I wrote some of it.
Indeed. Now do you have any response to the atmospheric propagation information that is I pointed out, and that is readily gathered from many sources? How close are you listening to Boyk's trumpet?
Despite your deceit, I have not claimed that instruments have no output energy above 20kHz. Have you no answer to my points about percussion instruments, the nonlinearity of atmospheric propagation at such intensity levels, etc?
Did you even notice that?
I won't speak for Arny, obviously, but since I've pointed out that these ultrasonic components of percussion at high levels, (and high frequencies) induce measurable, obvious nonlinearities in the atmosphere, your claim that I'm "minimizing" these really falls flat.
You're arguing against your own invented opponent, not anything I've said. It's like your complete failure on the time resolution issue, you've bulled ahead, insisted, insisted, and insisted, when the evidence is easily gathered, and is now before you in visual form as well.
Sorry, I haven't minimized anything. I've said that they don't propagate very well (fact), that high levels of ultrasonic information ARE perceived (but that's primarily on the skin, which I guess I should mention here, ask any submariner (again, fact)), and that high levels of energy, both sonic and ultrasonic in percussion hits create very palpable nonlinearities in atmospheric propagation.(more fact)
I've provided you with an array of FACTS which you choose to ignore and, rather, place your own illusory position at my feet.
Beyond that, you've chosen to react to being shown completely, abjectly, and totally wrong in the time resolution plots by retreating to base insult and professional defamation.
Yet you have the nerve to complain about others.
Simple answer. We know your post/information is false J_J. How, because the limited analog capabilities/resolution cannot accurately reproduce the graphs you present. 5us requires a minimum of 200khz bandwidth and even that won't reproduce accurately, yet you present math "evidence" that 22khz bandwidth will reproduce an accurate 5us waveform. Nobody is going to buy that lie.
Try to be honest with the public.
It should be obvious why J_J has continually refused to post his legal name, for fear of ethical and legal issues. How can one be trusted when he has to distance himself from his own posts.
Gotta go, but I am sure you will try another misleading trick.
That is certainly disingenuous. Look at j-j's Profile!
Stephen Mejias, John Atkinson, Kal Rubinson, and Arny Krueger seem to know who he is. You, too, could find out with a couple of clicks of your mouse.
Paranoia strikes deep!
*Everybody* knows who JJ is!
J-J is Dr. James Johnson.
This is his web page:
http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/
Now quit making a fool of yourself!
What is unclear about:
(1) Its only audible if you can hear it.
(2) Rather than minimizing the harmonics above 20 KHz, I've done listening tests where the harmonics above 20 KHz were as loud as is naturally possible.
Not at all.
Were we to some day discover that the absence of sounds > 20 KHz were important, we'd adjust some parameters by +1, and move on.
Basically, this discussion is about how many barks there are in the bark scale:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/bbt/Bark_Frequency_Scale.html
A lot of the programming code in perceptual coders runs its perceptual model in a loop that runs from 1 to 24. If we decide that audio > 20 KHz is important, we run the loop out to 25, instead. BFD.
Not at all. You're so far over your head that if you ever figure it out, you'll be embarassed for life.
Pathetic. You've been shown to be absolutely wrong, yet you persist in attempting to use your conclusion in order to justify your conclusion. Surely you know what a circular argument is.
You can see the results with your own eyes. You did see it. You have no argument to offer, yet you deny. You argued about "dithering" which is irrelevant. You argued about "smoothing", not realizing it meant filtering.
Now you attempt to muddy the water by trying to confuse a 5 microsecond pulse with 5 microseconds of INTERCHANNEL TIME DELAY. The two issues are very nearly separate. The context and discussion in this thread is about a 5 microsecond INTERCHANNEL TIME DELAY, and you know that from your own involvement in the thread.
Nobody has claimed you can jam a 5 microsecond pulse through anything with a 20kHz bandwidth and KEEP THE WIDTH AT 5 microseconds. Your claim otherwise is false, sir, and you've run to this falsehood to defend your original claim that one could not reproduce a 5 microsecond interchannel delay inside of 20kHz, which one can, and which I have demonstrated incontrovertably here.
I can't cure deliberate ignorance, nor shifting the goalposts at 120 miles an hour while telling falsehoods about the original goal. That's your problem.
If you bothered to go back about a page, you'd find me telling you that you can't jam a 5 microsecond pulse through a 20kHz system. Now you're claiming that I said that I can.
Pathetic, just pathetic.
Err, Arny, I am not a PhD, hence the "Dr." is incorrect. Just FYI.
Never mind that I was a lead researcher at Bell Labs in Acoustics Research, AT&T Research, etc. I didn't come in via the academy, I worked my way up the ranks out of the enlisted men.
Actually, it's simpler than that. Since physiological and other measurements have shown that 15kHz is within the highest (and closest to the oval/round windows in the ear, where energy enters and exits), the argument is strictly about how far the top critical band would extend. It would not actually require another critical band, because critical bands have been conclusively shown to map to cochlear place, and you can't get closer to the oval window than zero millimeters
But your point does hold in the general form, indeed.
Hillarious!
I mean ROTFLMF'ingAO hillarious!!!
jj, every time you have one or more of these regular meltdowns does Xeno rush back to the other forums to tell them you just creamed your pants?
That is the job of the sock puppet in training , isn't it? To report meltdowns?
And your's are classics! Just classic!
You must have to change pajamas and clean your keyboard after one of those.
Ya' know what, jj? I can't decide whether I like your meltdowns or not. They are annoying when I'm trying to get an answer out of you but they are also astronomically funny when you turn a simple sentence into such utter BS. I can see the spittle flying as you type! Great stuff, jj, great stuff indeed! That's what this forum needs, is a true nutjob ranter. You make Lamont look like a real slacker.
You're hired.
Tell ya' what though, you may be a bit over the top for this crowd. Try this, try not doing them for the next week and I'll make up my mind one way or'tother. Till then, don't give up your day job.
http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/
HoleyCrimney, jj! Who the hell goosed you when they took that picture? Don't tell me that's your regular "look". No wonder you meltdown the way you do whenever anyone says, "Hey, jj, look at what I know that you don't". You must be a bundle of nerves just waiting for the fuse to be lit.
Awwww, now I'm beginning to feel sorry for you. Indeed, paranoia strikes deep and it looks like you swallowed the whole darn thing.
You're kidding.
Right?
Tell me that was a joke.
Please.
And here jj posted ...
Oh, yeah, perception is something you don't discuss.
OK, well, then, in that case ...
ROTFLMAO!
Good one, arnie. I didn't know trolls could be comedians.
Like several here, including Stereophile editor John Atkinson, I know very well who and what JJ is, and no doubt at this point they, like me, know that you are making a *complete fool of yourself* with these accusations.
so, what part of the phrase 'high levels' did you not understand? Care to speculate on how high those levels have to be, and how likely one is to encounter them? It's a crucial bit of information that James Boyk didn't seem to include.
News flash, you braying ass (ad hominens shouldn't bother you, right?): you can see things with a microscope that are normally *invisible*. You can hear things at high levels that are normally *inaudible*.
This "quality assurance" comes to us from an anonymous forum-bashing troll named "Krabapple". It is to laugh. Speaking of laughing, it's funny how this j_j character, whoever he is, has such a problem with people hiding behind "pseudonames" or "nome de liars" as he calls it, that he'll rant about it until the cows come home. But never says a darn thing when they're owned by DBT-nuts like you, Axon, Xenophobia, or any of his other anonymous baggage carriers that are always taking up the rear.
Nice way to introduce yourself into this discussion, "krabapple". You boys from Hydrogen Audio sure know how to make a good impression. I wonder how many minutes it would take for you to be banned on your precious precious Hydrogen forum, if you spoke that way to members? In any case, I hope you don't expect any serious discussion from any member here, after addressing them like that.
You don't understand. That's his "calm face".
Well, frankly, if your posts had a shred of honesty, fact, or ethics behind them, I wouldn't have to say you were hiding your false accusations behind a nom-du-liar, would I?
Krabs is a bit more frank than I am, but he is right.
If you want to learn, learn some manners and how to ask questions.
Now that jj has brought the HA cavalry in, including myself, I have some (old!) information to bring to the table.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=85436
As linked above, I have observed - with my own eyes - that 16/44 is absolutely capable of 1.1 nanoseconds of time resolution. That's with arbitrarily defined (and arbitrarily good) converters. ie, how much time delay can the format itself encode? If you observe time resolution in terms of how accurately a pulse can be delayed, you'll find it really is about a nanosecond.
That's making some pretty big requirements about the converter designs though, like, for instance, 2.4 million tap filters, and oversampling by 20,000x. At 500x oversampling (still unrealistic) the observable resolution goes up to 45ns - and given that realistic designs are 128x, that is not bad! A more realistic simulation would have to simulate the sigma-delta nature of ADCs and DACs, and to paraphrase jj, I'm not getting paid for that sh*t.
That said - since most DACs nowadays are sigma-delta anyway, the actual, internal sampling rates of the converter are far higher than 44khz anyway. I don't have my code on me atm to repeat what I linked to, but all the information is there to reproduce it. A completely realistic simulation might be 128x oversampling with 24 bits internal resolution and <6000 taps. If you have a problem with the results from something like that, well, that's what's going on inside a DAC AFAIK, so....
You could test all this stuff empirically by wiring some ultra-accurate pulse generator to an ADC, outputting to a DAC, and measuring pulse timings off a free-running counter running at a few MHz which latches on edge+. (Highpass as necessary to eliminate ground hum.) Plot histograms of pulse timings; look for granular shifts in histograms coinciding with small changes in pulse period; the maximum pulse period change that does not cause an observable shift in histogram output is the observed time resolution of the ADC/DAC system. Compare against pulse generator wired directly to counter as a control.
I'm actually not really sure how that article relates to any of this. Jaggies like those jj plotted can be entirely acceptable (when the signal is properly antialiased, of course). Moreover, although I'm not going to speak for whichever AE wrote it, but it seems pretty clear to me that the point of the article is to inform people who want to measure signals, not to listen to them, and to measure them with hardware that would perhaps not be ideal for audio conversion. (Unless your recording studio has standardized on SCXI for multichannel recording?)
Honestly though, I'm not even sure jj did his little test through real hardware. That would require work. <wink> He probably coded that up in about 45 seconds in Matlab. But his point remains just as valid.
Tell you the truth, I was already prescient of that, Steve. I thought it would be a good opportunity to show the #1 rule of the Pathological Skeptic, which is exactly what you have come to understand and define as "they are to put the opponent on the defensive by demanding proof while they demonstrate nothing". (You also hit the nail square on the head by defining their rule #2: Leave out critical infomation in a debate so as to manipulate/mislead readers to a false conclusion".
Frankly, if I had a dime for every time one of these anti-high end cultists pulled this tactic on me, I'd be able to buy each and every one of them a decent audio system. And good God, maybe they'd finally get it, and realize how much they've wasted decades of their meaningless lives, foolishly arguing -against- good sound! At a time like this, we can only shake our heads and feel sorry for them, and turn to the wisdom of "Zen and the Art of Debunkery", to help the rest of us undertand where the anti-audiophiles have lost their way. See if any of THIS sounds familiar (for these quotes are in honor of "j_j", who must have a copy of this article, because he has lived every one of them out in this very thread!)....
From: "Zen and the Art of Debunkery" - Daniel Drasin
<> Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!
<> Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.
<> Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark
<> Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
<> Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.
Talking to yourself again, Arny? Because it looks like you just made a fool of your self again. The person on that page, whoever it is supposed to be, is named "Johnston". Not "Johnson". And nowhere on that person's page does it say anything about a "doctorate". So it appears you are trying to mislead the public again, by giving the person you call j_j credentials that aren't even listed on the alleged home site! *Everybody* knows who j_j is? Looks like YOU don't even know who j_j is! And a lickspittle who doesn't who his own master is? For shame Arnie! For shame.
I don't know any serious researcher who is afraid to identify himself in public (unless he is a fraud, is not proud of his research and does not stand behind it, or has something else to hide before the public). And after visiting the web page of your "Dr. James Johnson" who does not exist, guess what, I still don't.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that all of a sudden and out of the clear blue, no less than 3 of j_j's lackeys come into this thread to insist that "everyone knows who he is"? This following legitimate objections raised as to why, after continually alleging to be an industry professional, j_j refuses to put his name to any claims or statements he makes on this forum?
I also find it odd that I can not recall one time, not once, where the person who calls himself "j_j" has ever identified himself by his real name in any of his posts. Instead, when I ask him to simply identify his name on the board (assuming his birth name wasn't "j_j"!), he has replied by telling me I should already know who he is. Strange, that! Particularly for someone who attacks people for using handles on this forum! Other times, he replies by saying "so and so knows who I am, just ask them!". Or in response to a request to simply identify himself as something other than "j_j", 3 bootlickers come along to tell me how "everyone already knows who he is, so why ask questions!". Hmmm... if I didn't know any better.... I'd say this "j_j" fellow was hiding something....
Interesting. Because it is also at odds with what your master j_j said. So either he's not the expert you claim he is... or you're not. I'll give you some time to work that one out between yourselves, okay.
(1) it doesn't matter what sort of noises some instruments make, what matters is what we hear.
Agreed. So read the studies that you're clearly ignorant of and have never read, Krueger. For they show that some of those "noises" some instruments make affect aspects of the reproduction that audiophiles have always been able to discern by ear.
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! ;-)
Whereas Mr. Krueger never goes anywhere without a strawman by his side.
(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.
And your point is...?
(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.
That's probably because it is. Hint: I didn't say you were not allowed to read the entire article, including its reference articles from people a hell of a lot more established than you could ever hope to be at this point in your "illustrious career", if you insist on that "appeal to authority" thing.
(4) Oh, and one of the cited writers (Risch) is a well-known fraud.
LOL! Well then by that, I guess we can also dismiss any paper written by Sean Olive, James Johnston, or you. BTW, in case anyone is foolish enough to take anything you spew seriously, and doesn't know who Jon Risch is, Jon Risch is not a "well known fraud". Just like the article says, Risch is a well known audio engineer, one with whom I've conversed many eons ago. Let me say he's done a hell of a lot more for the internet audio community than you ever have or could. Among which, he created DIY Cat5 cable recipes (some of which I have tried), and gave the designs away for free, helping many audiophiles obtain cables that could compare to costly high end designs for next to nothing. When he could have simply marketed them like any other high end cable manufacturer, all of which you also call "frauds". So I'll just presume this is yet someone else in the audio community that you're insanely jealous of. Let me guess: Like John Atkinson, whom you've also accused of being a fraud every chance you could, the other Jon must have made you look like a stupid tw!t once too many times in once too many debates. Once a Krueger, always a Krueger.
Speaking of JA, this is the 2nd time now I see that he has asked you for an explanation on why you couldn't hear that your choral recordings weren't actually stereo ("fat mono" as he calls it!). In fact, a lot of people were discussing it, so why are you continually ducking him in responding? Are you that embarassed by your own recording work? Because if so, I can understand. You with a microphone is kind of a scary proposition, now that I think about it. But come on, Kruegie. At least -pretend- that you are proud of your efforts. I know I'm not the only one who'd get a kick out of seeing you defend them. Or if you don't think your sub-par recording efforts are good enough to defend, then at least have the good sense to apologize for them!
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.
You don't say? So what exactly do you need it for?!
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?
This must be like the 5th time you've stated this. Where is your evidence already that Jan claimed you have poor hearing?? I don't even see it inferred anywhere! Are you fabricating false claims again, j_j? Because that's not going to bode well for you. Provide evidence.
For that matter, you could go to Akansu and Smith's book on Wavelets in the introductory section, although it's a touch mathematical, but you might not like that one, I wrote some of it.
I doubt that. I have researched this at my local library, and all inter-related libraries. I did not find any books authored by "j_j". Is it possible your publisher misspelled your name by using a hyphen, instead of an underscore?
Your intentional deceit is becoming obvious, as is the fact that you appear clueless as to what you have been presented.
I'll tell you what you have been presented with, then, since you obviousl do not wish to acknowlege it.
You have been presented with ----
.... Listen "j_j", "Woodinville" or whoever you are, all that I see "presented" on my side of the screen, is 2 unidentified plots. I don't know where they came from. Perhaps your kid doodling with a Spirograph. They seem to be lacking something.... Like a proper study that accompanies, explains and/or corroborates it. But I only see two photos of unknown origin. Are they yours? If so, why won't you sign your name to your posts that shows they belong to you?
I suggest you show the published study that backs them up, so we can all see how that compares to the Kunchur studies, or other studies that have shown output above 22kHz has significant effects on the reproduction of music that falls within the range of human hearing (which corroborates much empirical data over decades of time). Sorry, two pics coutresy of Flickr or Spirograph (tm), ain't gonna cut it. When it comes to hard facts vs. your dogmatic words on something, I think that I, and anyone here who doesn't appear to act as your personal baggage carrier and toilet seat wiper, will stick with hard proven facts. See? I can be a skeptic too!
I require that you stipulate that I have done a great deal of research on the subject.
LOL! Is that a legal threat now, or what? And that "requirement", is that you or your ego speaking? Is there a difference?! I'll tell you what "j_j". When you show us the detailed and scientifically valid results of YOUR studies into ultrasonic frequencies that disproves all others we've seen, then ask the question again.
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?
You know, that's got to be one of the craziest cop-outs for evading requests for proof that I think I've seen. It competes very nicely with some of what I've seen of Kreuger's crazy cop-outs to avoid supporting his claims. Which believe me, is saying something. In fact it's so crazy, "it just might work", j_j. But don't let Arny see it. He'll want to steal it, I'm sure.
I would suggest that a sincere apology should be forthcoming from you.
I guess it just wouldn't be a "j_j" post without at last ONE silly demand for a "sincere grovelling apology" from his opponent. LOL! I'm sure when the men in white come to cart you away, you're going to be screaming for an apology from them as well!
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.
Why is it that the intensity of your ridiculous hyperbole is always equivalent to your deliberate obfuscation of the facts? It is a clear fact that you are refusing to post your legal name and professional affiliation to your posts. Evidenced by the fact that one can not see your legal name and professional affiliation to your posts in the signature of your posts (let me know when any of this is getting through to you). In fact, to my knowledge, you have never even stated your real name anywhere in any of your increasingly numerous messages on this forum.
So by the above facts, if you want to start accusing people of "lies", then the "lie" is clearly coming from you, since it is proven that there is no dishonesty in stating you are refusing to post your legal name in your messages. As suggested, by the fact that you will not even state who you are (by revealing your full and legal name) in any of your posts, but will only allude to it via your supporters or the site link in your profile, you appear to be stealing someone else's identity, and are avoiding stating your name in your posts to avoid prosecution for that.
This fact alone, makes you very suspect in my eyes, and that of many here. Because as Steve said, there is no reason not to simply state your real full and legal name in a reply, or to include it in your sig. Especially when you claim that people can "find out what the J_J stands for" via "your" website. The more you evade stating who you are exactly in your online messages, and the more you falsely accuse people of lying on this front in an attempt to subvert the facts, the more suspicious you become. Particularly given the position you have tried to put others in, for not stating who they are.
Funny, I use the same name here that I've used for 30 years, so your "not posting your name" nonsense is just insane.
No, what is "just insane" is what you just said. You're not being asked to use your PSEUDONAME, "j_j". You are being asked to post your LEGAL birth name. All you are saying here, is that for 30 years, you have been using a "nome de liar" as you yourself call it, to hide behind your PC and make all kinds of defamatory attacks and accusations against people, or other claims that you will not take responsibility for, by not posting your name (and professional affiliation) in your signature on all of your posts. Like Steve, who takes full responsibility for his words, does.
You can't have it both ways, "j_j". You can't try to call yourself a professional and not act like one. You can't accuse others of "hiding behind their nics" while you do exactly that. And don't feed me that stupid BS again about how "other people know who you are!". "Other people" know who everyone here is!!! If you're going to insist on inferring or accusing others here of wrongdoing by posting under "pseudonames", then post under your own name!
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.
So when you accused me and others here of hiding behind their "nics", "pseudonames" and (my fave) "nomes de liars", which was it... "paranoia" or "deliberate defamation" that you were engaging in? How dishonest are you, to be engaging in behaviour you condemn others here for?
Ridiculous. Your prating on this issue is utterly without ethics, morals, or reason. If anything, it's an attempt to invade my privacy.
So now you're admitting that you were without "ethics, morals or reason", when you were trying to invade the privacy of other members, by demanding that Stereophile change its policy to make it obligatory for people to use their legal names? Well there's one thing we finally agree on! It always gets more and more interesting with you, doesn't it?
I guess one way or another, we're finally starting to see who you really are, now.
Steve,
Many of us have learned a lot from your contributions to this forum, so thank you for that. I may not always personally agree with you, but I always respect what you have to say, because you clearly stand behind every single one of your statements, and every single one of your posts. It's right there in your sig; professional affiliation, full address, company website, the works. Everyone here knows who you are, and that you can be trusted to be objective. So it is easy to trust you not to have a hidden agenda, because you don't hide anything, and your affiliation is full out in the open, stamped on everything you write.
Your opponent on the other hand, is the polar opposite. I just don't trust anything he says. If j_j told me the sun was going to shine tomorrow, I would insist on looking out my window to see if that's correct. Furthermore, with his constant ducking, dodging and weaseling out of questions or requests to simply identify himself (since he's the one who made such a stink about people hiding behind names here!), he appears to be hiding a lot... including some crazy kind of "anti-high end audio agenda", whereby he just makes stuff up if it serves to support "mediocre-end audio". Plus, let's face it... he's just plain unlikeable. Which reminds me, have you seen his mug lately on the alleged "website"? It kinda looks like a scary Santa. Heck, I know it would scare MY children away (if I had any).
In my opinion, I don't think you should even continue debating this shady character, unless and until he is willing to stand behind his words and sign his name and professional affiliation to his posts. Otherwise, he has you over at an advantage, doesn't he? He can defame you profesionally, or any way he wants, without having to take responsibility for what he writes, whereas you do. Until this person who hides behind the pseudoname "j_j" acts like a professional, as you always have, he does not deserve anyone's trust or respect for anything he says (despite the fact that he has the nerve to demand this from us, when he has -never- identified himself!).
- Michigan
His HA username is "Woodinville". For several years, he refused to confirm or deny that he was jj. He even referred to himself in the third person on many occasions. (Actually he still does!)
Grow some sacks, y'all.
And fwiw, I missed the "t" in "Johnston" for quite a while. I also missed the "e" in "Clark Johnsen".
You know, I actually kinda do agree with you on this (which is why I've deliberately tried to keep my tone civil here recently). What krab said would probably be a TOS2 violation on HA if it were up to me.
That said, having a horrific, unprovoked, expletive-filled fit of apoplexy seems much more certain to be a TOS2 violation. Pot, meet kettle?
I believe I've already alluded to this before in the thread on banning: while everybody is obviously responsible for their own posts, if there's anybody to blame for the level of civility on this forum, it is the moderator.
Never said it was "real hardware", in fact I said "mathematically generated".
As you point out, the visible differences in the waveforms are hard to miss.
Oh, and the reason it's not antialiased is that it's a Gaussian pulse, with a bandwidth such that the spill at 22050 is negligible. Handy thing, those. I think prolate spheroidal sequences would be just a bit too, too obtuse for this forum.
That characteristic also makes it good for testing for things like filter artifacts and the like, but I don't think we'll get to that point of discussion here.
And then...
It is hard to imagine a clearer proof of "Michigan J. Frog"'s own inconsistancy.
He can't figure out who I am, and at the same time he can correct someone else's misspelling of my name, and follow up to information I provided in this thread, correcting Arny's mistaken 'Dr." but somehow taking ill of it in regard to me after I've already made the correction.
Both mistakes have been made many times, in programs, in third party bios, in titles, on at least one PLAQUE (grumble) and more, the 'Dr' mistake repeatedly despite my attempts to have it corrected and my very careful filling of forms to make it clear it is not appropriate, and the confusion of the good auld Scots "Johnston" with the south-of-the-Tweed "Johnson", one referring to "John's farm" and the other to "Son of John", which is routine. Neither mistake is, unfortunately, unusual or remarkable. I fear at this point, they are simply expected.
Even judges and attourneys, who should know better, get it wrong.
None the less, the pseudonymous "Michigan J. Frog" uses it to lauch a variety of attacks on several individuals.
What's more, it appears that "Michigan J. Frog" has no connections whatsoever inside the academic or mainstream side of the audio world, because then he'd have very little trouble finding his way to me by simply asking for "jj". You may have noticed that John, Kal, Sean and Arny had no trouble understanding who they were conversing with, ditto Axon and Krabs, and that I remain on civil terms with all of them, aside from the occasional dustup with Arny, something I doubt anyone will find extraordinary.
"Michigan J. Frog" is simply trying to divert attention from his own use of a pseudonym as a way to prevent his own misconduct from reflecting on his real identity. That's all there is to it.
It really is time that the likes of Michigan J. Frog simply gets out of the road, and allows some reasonable discussion to take place.
I agree with that. Watching the GE regulars around here stumble around trying to understand audio at the level typically seen in technically-sophisticated forums like HA is getting old, fast.
JA made some very brave but unfounded claims on HA about the intellectual level of GE posters to this forum, but after the "X/Y phase plot = penis" comments, it is pretty clear where the lot of you are coming from.
JA hardly ever posts here, and after watching you stumble around for several weeks trying to figure out who JJ is, It appears that he doesn't even lower himself to help you out of the deep holes you have dug yourself into.
This place is pretty much a wasteland, and it is the loud-mouthed, ignorant and proud of it, GE posetrs who make it that way.
It's basically RAO with moderation, showing that while moderation can clear out the trash, it can't create wisdom from foolishment.
I'm not sure it is wise to second-guess why JA tends a bit towards lurking here.
Did people actually not get who jj was all this time? I just figured that Jan and Frogger etal were just pulling his leg. Perhaps pulling it with a wood chipper, but still. Otherwise... their heads had to be up some pretty deep holes. That's funny as hell.
That's a little harsh. Or a little lenient. I'm not sure which. I think a more apt analogy would be that this is the SomethingAwful to Audio Asylum's 4chan. The flames are just more epic over there, and they still manage to be more productive.
Everybody flames everybody else on this stuff if it's allowed. Didn't I chew you out over your attitude on HA once? It really doesn't necessarily have to be like this. There's a rather clear line between "I think you are wrong/deaf/corrupt/ignorant" and, for instance, "I'm sure when the men in white come to cart you away, you're going to be screaming for an apology from them as well!" One statement is abusive and hateful. The other is not. HA would be just as cesspool-like without its moderation (and at times it's gotten close when they haven't received user reports).
<conspicuously pokes Stephen in the shoulder>
What I wrote on Hydrogen Audio, Mr. Krueger, was that that my intellectual level, and that of the posters to this forum, was on a different plane from your own. You might believe my statement "unfounded," but I respectfully suggest it is supported by your own postings on this subject.
Really? The margin to the posts reports I have made 1185 posts to date. Perhaps that was someone else with the same name?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
We're supposed to be adults and act as such. I am astounded at the rancor and incivility and childish behavior on some of the threads and I try to avoid them. I saw JA's response and backread- to see what all the fuss was about. Nothing, really. Just the usual suspects throwing sand and pushing each other off the slide in the playground.
The topic doesn't matter when it turns to pages and pages of sniping and carping.
Stephen will close the thread when he feels he must. Do you think he might have more important things to do than babysit?
Why don't we try moderating OURSELVES?
You guys are funny. Knocking JJ's looks now? None of you are princes.
Thank you, rvance. Yes, this is exactly what I want and expect: Intelligent adults to behave like intelligent adults.
However, what I'm left to think is that those who constantly get into these childish conflicts are not intelligent at all. Or they may be intelligent in some ways, but their emotional intelligence is that of two-year-olds.
I don't know how to teach adults to behave like adults, I'm afraid.
I guess some people build communities and some people try to break them down. But I think there are imporant ways that the former can be promoted.
I think the boundaries of acceptable discourse are very vague; if an outright prohibition was made of abusive/vulgar/hateful/harassing/etc language, and was enforced consistently and impartially, people would pay far more attention to avoiding those boundaries. As it stands, people get abusive all the time, with very little risk.
Here's an idea: Before posting anything, why don't we all ask ourselves the questions:
How can I offer something valuable to this situation? How can I be helpful or interesting or entertaining, while still being considerate?
If you don't have a good answer to those questions, then don't contribute. If you dislike someone so much that you can't act in a mature, adult manner with that person, then don't interact with that person. Keep your nastiness to yourself, vent your frustrations in some other way -- try listening to music, or something.
Earth-shattering ideas, I know.
Oh, man, Jan. This is way beneath you & you know it. No need to say who egged what on, there's no justification of this kind of attack... this is pretty low class.
j_j's homepage is linked right from his profile. All you had to do was take 10 seconds to click and find out who he is ... pathetic!
I never followed RAO closely and even I remember jj there:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio...udgeon+jj+audio
I think you misunderstood my intent. Others seem to have managed. So, I won't demand a sniffling, sniveling, sincerely groveling on your knees in a mile of broken glass apology - this time.
(That is a joke, sd.)
Axon, I've got to hand it to you. The first time we dealt with each other, I thought you were a grade A troll just following the orders of the other superior trolls that had arrived here on this forum. You've changed my mind. You've been quite decent on this forum over the past few weeks. I notice you've stayed out of a lot of the mudslinging and not engaged in any yourself. I think that's commendable and I hope you stick around. What you have posted has had some value to it and it is clearly worth the effort on your part and for the reader.
Since you made that a response directed to my post, I do have something to say to that, arnie.
I never once presented myself as anything other than what I am - someone interested in audio and music. Most of the technical information that has been presented on this thread is either new to me or something I have not concerned myself with since I have no need for it in my daily life. But that's why I'm here, because I have always found I can learn from someone who knows more than I do. Perhaps you operate in a different manner. From what I do know of you now and from what I've seen, I can only assume you do.
You and a few others from the anti-audiophile forums have consistently looked down your nose at anyone who isn't, shall we say, "on your level". You didn't come here to assist anyone on this forum - you came here to be a troll. You can't deny that fact. We can dispute why you chose this time to arrive here but in that task you have been enormously successful. You are a troll among trolls in real life and not much more. You in particular have disrupted threads with not much more than your attitude that this is an inferior forum and you are here to teach us a lesson.
You have something to preach and that's all you have. We've heard the sermon and you have nothing more to offer. We aren't going to learn anything from you, arnie, that's obvious.
And I am here to tell you we don't need your type of lesson. And whatever jj might have to offer, we really don't need any of that either.
Then I suggest you leave and find greener pastures for your sort of forum bashing. That's not difficult to figure out, is it? You've done your best over the last few weeks to make this a wasteland and now you are free to leave and I hope you do so. You have nothing to offer that we desire.
How could I expect anything more from you? You are a loudmouth who cannot even get along with your fellow trolls. The "atta-boys" sent your way are from those just like you who rush between forums to announce a meltdown or a "smart" comment made against another forum member. You must get tired of patting each other on the back over such trivial things as disrupting a forum.
No, I suppose you don't.
You came here to "conquer" and instead you've trashed the forum in every way at every opportunity.
If you had something to offer to those who are interested in learning, I doubt they would want any of what you have to offer.
I certainly don't.
If you had anything to offer, others would be here to learn. They aren't and they aren't going to come. You've made it clear why you are here and most everyone avoids you. How proud of your accomplishments that makes you I can only guess.
Unlike a few of you I haven't spent my life on the audio forums engaging in the same battles over and over for decades. However, I understand you, arnie, have played a large part in destroying more than one forum. Don't destroy this one. I also understand you have a grudge against John and your grudges are not given up - at all. No one here cares. John can take care of himself and from what I've seen has done so many times with you.
You are a loudmouthed buffoon, arnie. You don't belong here and I do wish you'd leave as soon as possible. It is more than foolish to stay anywhere you find to be a wasteland and no one wants you here anyway.
Would sprinkling some Holy Water on you make you vanish? I suspect you'd have some measurement for why Holy Water is not really Holy. Probably, like others from the "science" brigade you'd attack any belief that it was.
Brilliant - just brilliant.
Arnie, you're wasting your time here. There are far greener pastures for you to plow elsewhere. Go there and tell everyone of your conquest of the Stereophile forum, that's your only aim so go - now. Like everything else you post, only those you have yet to fool will nod their head in belief. Maybe you'll get another "attaboy" from another troll.
Wow! is all I can say.
Just know that you have converted no one to your ways and beliefs and many to the conviction you are an ass.
Ok, can we get back to the question brought up in the OP, which is the issue of how much time differential PCM can encode and reproduce at a sampling rate of 44100 Hz and a bit depth of 16 bits?
Sasaudio has insisted that you can't do better than one sampling interval. Both Axon and I have posted graphs, or referred to graphs, showing incontrovertably that you can do so.
Sasaudio has argued that if you put a 5 microsecond pulse through a 44.1 system, properl designed, of course, it will simply disappear. This is also incorrect.
The antialiasing filter will (and must) spread out the pulse so that it's much longer, in particular at least as long as 2 full samples. Such a pulse will no longer be a 5 us pulse.
What it will continue to do, however, is encode substantially less than the sample interval in time information about its onset.
To use an example, although this is not the way that it is usually done, (for many good reasons, it serves to illustrate), if we have this pulse, and it occurs exactly over one sampling interval, i.e. it is centered on one sampling instant, we will see something like a series of .25 .5 .25 come out of the filter, and be encoded by the PCM system. If the pulse is just a tiny bit before that, it will come out as .3 .5 .2, perhaps (the sum will stay the same, because I'm setting the pulse to have a DC value of '1'). If it comes halfway between two sample instants, it will be encoded as .5 .5 and so on.
In this fashion, which is using a not-particularly-good filter for antialiasing, one can easily see the change in the data due to the pulse position.
When this data is put back through the reconstruction (antiimaging) filter, the time location of the pulse will be seen to move accordingly.
The real situation, for a delta-sigma convertor, (see www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm the deck on convertor issues, please), using a constant delay (also called linear phase) filter, will have a much longer filter (in this case I've used the minimum filter that is 2 samples long, which really doesn't have enough frequency resolution), and the situation will be even more clearly observable and obvious, but will involve many more numbers or plots.
Given the inexcusable malingering about the plots I have previously put up for this thread, I have little interest in proceeding further in that fashion.
Again, Morrison's book titled "Fourier Analysis" by Wiley Interscience is a valuable resource here.
Pohlman's book is of some value, as well.
Rabiner and Gold, or Rabiner and Shaeffer are the classics, but are out of print.
The first chapter to Akansu and Smith's book on wavelets may be valuable to the mathematically enabled, but not to the general engineering population.
Lyons book, Proakis' introductory texts, etc, all can help with the understanding of this book, as will older communications theory books that discuss PCM without the modern 'z' transform discussion, in a moderately different, but still accessable way.
It is interesting to note that if one could not distinguish such intersample time delays, our cell phones, for instance, would not work properly, US digital TV (HD or not) would not provide a good picture or moderately undistorted audio (the bit rates for audio transmission become an issue there, sadly), and so on.
This kind of "encoding" of time in a spread out pulse is universal to PCM systems, and in fact must be, due to the action of the antialiasing and antiimaging filters. It is not speculative, it is not new information, and it is implicit from the form of the Shannon Sampling Theorem.
And, sadly, the quotes extracted from the papers that started this thread appear to argue otherwise, at least as quoted here.
Unfortunately, legally and ethically, your comment means nothing. The fact is J_J adamently refuses to sign his name, distancing himself, for ethical and legal reasons. I suggest you take some law. By the way, interested in posting your legal name? I see you simply left a previous string the other string when this was requested of you.
As mentioned in the reply to Xenophanes, your comment means nothing ethically nor legally. I suggest you take law arny.
Pages