Quote:

Quote:
If you don't understand what uptake means, then there is no hope for you.

"uptake" is not a technical term in this context.

The reason that technical terms are carefully defined would be obvious by this point, I trust.

Just go ahead and try the experiment. First one, and then two, pulses. Measure the output.

Just do it.

Just discussed two pulses 5us apart, 23us sampling (16/44khz player), in one channel with a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois, Champaign and he said the two pulses will be blurred together, just like Dr. Kunchur explained in his email reply to me and which I presented on page 30. And also the graph I presented earlier. Here is the link to show visually what occurs audio wise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

End of discussion. Go argue with RCA etc. I am out of here.

[quoteJust discussed two pulses 5us apart, 23us sampling (16/44khz player), in one channel with a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois, Champaign and he said the two pulses will be blurred,

Sorry, wrong question. Nobody questions that the pulses will be spread out in time. This is elementary. This is something that has never been in dispute. When you say "blurred" you do not prove that they can not be distinguished. All you do is establish, as everyone agrees, that the bandwidth is limited.

There are two questions:

1) can they be distinquished (yes) (in several ways)
and
2) can the human listener detect a difference in a 20khz bandwidth (under good conditions) and the answer is also "yes".

Quote:

just like Dr. Kunchur explained in his email reply to me and which I presented on page 30. And also the graph I presented earlier. Here is the link to show visually what occurs audio wise.

Did you ask him the question (the key question) about the frequency content?

I guess not. Otherwise you'd be admitting you were wrong by now.

I would suggest you call the fellow up and tell him what the real dispute is. You seem stuck on something that everyone agrees on, the simple fact that the pulse will be spread greatly in time. How many times do we all have to tell you THAT WE ALL AGREE WITH THIS AND THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER?

And if he would like to discuss this with me, to find out what's really the dispute, as opposed to your attempt to hide the facts of the dispute from him, ask him to set up a conference call between me, him, and another EE professor from there who I won't name here, but who he ought to know well enough.

That way among the 3 of us on the phone we'll have three signal processing experts and at least 2 psychoacoustic experts.

Quote:
[quoteJust discussed two pulses 5us apart, 23us sampling (16/44khz player), in one channel with a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois, Champaign and he said the two pulses will be blurred,

Sorry, wrong question. Nobody questions that the pulses will be spread out in time. This is elementary. This is something that has never been in dispute. When you say "blurred" you do not prove that they can not be distinguished. All you do is establish, as everyone agrees, that the bandwidth is limited.

There are two questions:

1) can they be distinquished (yes) (in several ways)
and
2) can the human listener detect a difference in a 20khz bandwidth (under good conditions) and the answer is also "yes".

Quote:

just like Dr. Kunchur explained in his email reply to me and which I presented on page 30. And also the graph I presented earlier. Here is the link to show visually what occurs audio wise.

Did you ask him the question (the key question) about the frequency content?

I guess not. Otherwise you'd be admitting you were wrong by now.

I would suggest you call the fellow up and tell him what the real dispute is. You seem stuck on something that everyone agrees on, the simple fact that the pulse will be spread greatly in time. How many times do we all have to tell you THAT WE ALL AGREE WITH THIS AND THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER?

And if he would like to discuss this with me, to find out what's really the dispute, as opposed to your attempt to hide the facts of the dispute from him, ask him to set up a conference call between me, him, and another EE professor from there who I won't name here, but who he ought to know well enough.

That way among the 3 of us on the phone we'll have three signal processing experts and at least 2 psychoacoustic experts.

I suggest the viewers start from the beginning and see for themselves how many times J_J has changed positions, reversed himself, used inappropriate conditions and tests, then changed them, misrepresented other's positions, over 40 some pages, anything to attack Dr. Kunchur and now me. It is almost impossible to pin him down to any position for long. Check for yourselves, otherwise you are going to be duped.

Take care viewers and be careful, and as Dr. Kunchur stated, be careful what you read and believe.

Quote:

I suggest the viewers start from the beginning and see for themselves how many times J_J has changed positions, reversed himself, used inappropriate conditions and tests, then changed them, misrepresented other's positions,

It is telling that I haven't changed my position once. I think it's time that you cease these misrepresentations, and just go try the experiment that has been previously described to you.

Why do you avoid the experiment that will show the facts? What are you afraid of? You ARE wrong, you'd better be comfortable with that, regardless, but now you're afraid to find out that you're wrong? Why?

Quote:

anything to attack Dr. Kunchur.

And, this lie is really getting tiresome. I have pointed out what certainly read like obvious mistakes in the QUOTES ATTRIBUTED to Dr. Kunchur.

And I stand by my analysis.

Sasaudio would have us all upset at my "attacking Dr. Kunchur" when he, himself, has engaged in a thoroughly offensive attack on a much more highly recognized individual in the field, namely me.

It seems that sasaudio wishes to attempt to divert the attention of the reader from his own pathetic, offensive, and thoroughly defamatory misconduct.

I suggest, sasaudio, that you retract all of your accusations, admit publically, as I suspect you know, that I have NOT changed my position, that I AM right in my various analyses of the different situations you have attempted to present in your relentless evasions of the truth, and that you have in fact engaged in a completely unwarranted, uttelry untrue series of attacks on a recognized expert in the field for no apparent reason.

Be a mensch for once.

Quote:

I suggest, sasaudio, that you retract all of your accusations, admit publically, as I suspect you know, that I have NOT changed my position, that I AM right in my various analyses of the different situations you have attempted to present in your relentless evasions of the truth, and that you have in fact engaged in a completely unwarranted, uttelry untrue series of attacks on a recognized expert in the field for no apparent reason.

Be a mensch for once.

Alternate hypothesis: SAS *DOESN'T* know you are right -- because he doesn't know enough to know what 'right' is here. That's the vibe I get off of his posts: he's flying blind. And rather than try to gain that knowledge, he simply reposts that promotional graph from Pyramix, links to wikipedia on antialiasing, and says 'but Dr Kunchur has a PhD!", as if together they actually addressed yours or Axon's points: the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

It appears he's actively avoiding (it's hard not to notice it) actually 'doing the experiments', or actually addressing the technical points you've repeatedly asked him to, because that would require understanding the 'hard stuff' first.

So really, he should at this point convene that phone conference with experts, because he's apparently not really equipped to argue 'his' side.

Or we can all just wait for Dr. Kunchur and his DSP expert to chime in, as promised, on the thread devoted to specific questions for him.

Quote:
[quoteJust discussed two pulses 5us apart, 23us sampling (16/44khz player), in one channel with a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois, Champaign and he said the two pulses will be blurred,

Sorry, wrong question. Nobody questions that the pulses will be spread out in time. This is elementary. This is something that has never been in dispute. When you say "blurred" you do not prove that they can not be distinguished. All you do is establish, as everyone agrees, that the bandwidth is limited.

There are two questions:

1) can they be distinquished (yes) (in several ways)
and
2) can the human listener detect a difference in a 20khz bandwidth (under good conditions) and the answer is also "yes".

Quote:

just like Dr. Kunchur explained in his email reply to me and which I presented on page 30. And also the graph I presented earlier. Here is the link to show visually what occurs audio wise.

Did you ask him the question (the key question) about the frequency content?

I guess not. Otherwise you'd be admitting you were wrong by now.

I would suggest you call the fellow up and tell him what the real dispute is. You seem stuck on something that everyone agrees on, the simple fact that the pulse will be spread greatly in time. How many times do we all have to tell you THAT WE ALL AGREE WITH THIS AND THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER?

And if he would like to discuss this with me, to find out what's really the dispute, as opposed to your attempt to hide the facts of the dispute from him, ask him to set up a conference call between me, him, and another EE professor from there who I won't name here, but who he ought to know well enough.

That way among the 3 of us on the phone we'll have three signal processing experts and at least 2 psychoacoustic experts.

-----

Of course the obvious first question is if you are/were sincere in a conference call, why didn't you contact Dr. Kunchur (for conference or posting) before attacking his credibility and papers on page 2. How about by page 10, page 20, page 30. I feel sorry for the treatment Dr. Kunchur and others have had to deal with because of your continued attacks throughout this string.

For those new Dr. Kunchur concludes that the sampling rate needs to be increased in CD players. Dr. Kunchur provides mainstream PHD backup, peer (from universities and institutes in physics, electrical engineering etc), over a dozen anonymous referees, three national organizations that all support his papers and conclusions, a 5 year project in total. According to J_J, none of the dozens of mainstream PHDs etc understand basic sampling, mathematics etc, since these PHDs concur with Dr. Kunchur. Evidently these mainstream PHDs must be misteaching our kids in some areas. So when are you going to publish a paper(s) and pass it around to all the universities so we make sure all will have the correct knowledge from J_J himself. Let me know when that occurs.

Where is your support again J_J? Where are the weblinks supporting your claims so the public can see them. In fact you have refused to provide any weblinks. So much for openness to the public. (He will just dodge yet again by stating we need to read the books, since the equations he uses are not actually listed in those books, nor evidently on any websites either for you to see.)

Dr. Kunchur describes the process from start to finish by starting with his backup/peer reviews, through national organizations, anonymous referring and eventually publishing.

Quote:
Then optimum equipment, methods, and a multitude of cross checks must be developed (my papers give some details to help appreciate what went in). It takes about half a year to conduct each sequence of controlled blind tests. Consent forms (legally approved and certified by the IRB) must be signed.

The results, analysis, and conclusions are then carefully considered and discussed with colleagues who are experts in their related inter-disciplinary fields; for this I went in person to various universities and research institutes and met with people in departments of physics, engineering, psychology, neuroscience, music, communications sciences, physiology, and materials science.

After that the results and conclusions were presented at conferences of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS). Seminars were also made at numerous universities and research/industrial institutions (please see the list on my web site).

After each presentation, the audience is free to tear apart the conclusions and ask all possible questions. Eminent people such as presidents of the above mentioned societies and corporations were present at my presentations and engaged in the discussions.

After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want. More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process. Only after everyone is satisfied with the accuracy of the results and all statements made in the manuscript, are the papers published in the journals.

What is J_Js peer reviews etc? None that he lists. He is, however, a "fellow" and his employer is a financial sponsor of AES (AES has some companies financially backing them), so an obvious conflict of interest.

Yet again, I quote from Dr. Kunchur's email, Dr. Kunchur corrects J_J and Arny Krueger

Quote:
In science, assertions must be properly backed up and verified. I don't know who made up this nonsense of dividing the sampling period by the vertical bits to obtain a temporal resolution. The bits give the shades of intensity (related to sound pressure level) that can be differentiated, whereas the sampling period gives the frequency at which the information about these levels is updated. They have no direct connection!

In digital photography, the angular image resolution is governed by the number of pixels of a digital camera sensor, whereas the shades light intensity that can be discriminated is governed by the number of bits (about 14 bits in current digital SLRs). If you do not have enough pixels to resolve a certain angular separation between points in an image, no number of bits can fix this.

Similarly, if you have two sharp peaks of sound pressure separated by less than the sampling period, the two will become blurred together: the temporal density of digital samples is then simply not enough to represent the two peaks distinctly and nothing you do with the bits can change this.

Unless a different interpretation of minimal temporal separation is taken, it is completely fallacious to assert that a CD can resolve less than 5 microseconds when its individual samples are separated by periods of 23 microseconds. (Note that it is true that small alterations in temporal profiles can be indirectly encoded through variations in adjacent levels and that this is certainly aided by having more bits; however, a true translation in time of a temporal feature can only take place in quantized sample periods.)

Now, yet once again, here is link, check the photos under "Example" that verifies/backups what Dr. Kunchur is saying.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

Notice the smearing, the inner detail is lost as one looks toward the rear of the photos, 1B/1C verses even 1A. Why are you still constantly arguing with everyone (except the 5 others who are with you).

Yet J_J just stated this

Quote:
When you say "blurred" you do not prove that they can not be distinguished.

Dr. Kunchur disagrees, The anti-aliasing link above with photos 1B/1C disagree. J_J tell us an accurate reproducton occurs. Look for yourselves, go to the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

(Notice he is discussing 1 channel now, see pages 2 to at least page 28.)
J_J

Quote:
And since I've never been "away" from two channels,

Just one instance when he changed positions after he was caught using an inappropriate test to "prove" Dr. Kunchur was in error.

First, Arny Krueger and J_J never contacted Dr. Kunchur to discuss Dr. Kunchur's papers and have Dr. Kunchur defend his papers here, a standard setting like a conference, seminar etc. Nope. Instead these are the comments Arny and J_J make.
Arny, page 1.

Quote:
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.

Not terribly bad but still a put down. What is wrong with contacting Dr. Kunchur. Nothing when dealing with this magnitude of subject matter. We are talking professionals, not lay talk.

Here is what J_J stated on page 2.

Quote:
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.

I suppose J_J hadn't even read Dr. Kunchur's paper. But how about that for a put down to a PHD/professor in Physics. Dr. Kunchur has plenty of capable PHDs in physics, electrical engineering etc to verify/agree his findings. Dr. Kunchur corrected Arny's and J_J's conclusions in his email but that was page 30, kinda late I would say.

I would again suggest the viewers start from page 1 (which J_J has never suggested) and see for yourselves who is telling the truth and who is not.

I am not even going to respond to your last post. The subject is you attacking Dr. Kunchur instead of inviting him to discuss his papers on this forum. This string would have been totally different, more pleasant, if you had invited him to the string or contacted him privately.

Have a pleasant weekend folks.

Quote:
[Of course the obvious first question is if you are/were sincere in a conference call, ...

More evasion. Evasion based on facts not in evidence, furthermore.

When will you try the simple, obvious test to see if you can, yourself, via spectral droop, determine the difference between one and two 3us pulses, with the onset of the two pulses separated by 5us?

You seem completely unaware of the nature or tone of scientific dialog. You persist in falsely accusing me of "attacking Dr. Kunchur", when in fact I have (and very gently) questioned the QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM that appeared here.

Questioning one's results is not the same as attacking the individual.

Do I need to give you basic lesson on scientific dialog?

Go try the experiment. See what distinguishing factors remain. Do it yourself. Your cell phone does a similar experiment at least 2000 times/second, quite successfully. Your HDTV, if you have one receiving broadcast HDTV, is doing it about 3.75 million times per second, and if you have a good picture on your screen, doing so successfully. (but don't ask me about the design of the HD modem, sigh, it's a classical standards camel)

Your TV can do it. Your cell phone can do it. If you have a cable modem, it can do it. If you have a modem on your computer, it can do it. If you have a bluetooth headset, it can do it, so why won't YOU even try?

Rather than trying to redirect the debate to your imaginary straw men, your illusory claims that I've changed my position, and your exhibition of repeated failure to even read, let alone accept the information in ANY, and I do mean ANY modern Fourier analysis or DSP textbook, just do the experiment.

What are you afraid of?

My goodness!

Allow me to help you.

Green is 1 pulse. Red is two, 5us delay,each half amplitude, sampling rate 44.1kHz, etc, etc, as we have discussed.

Both overall and expanded view shown.

Note: My previous plots were demonstrating the difference using a guassian pulse. These use a filter design much like modern DAC's.

The impulse response you see is of the ADC and DAC filters.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff228/jj_0001/plots/pulses.jpg

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff228/jj_0001/plots/bpulses.jpg

That is what you will see, modulo differences in your antialaising and antiimaging filters. You will see no difference of substance.

One sample at 44.1kHz corresponds to approximately 58 units on the horizontal axis if you find yourself in need of scaling. Vertical scale is arbitrary amplitude.

Q. E. D.

Now go try the experiment yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
[Of course the obvious first question is if you are/were sincere in a conference call, ...

More evasion. Evasion based on facts not in evidence, furthermore.

When will you try the simple, obvious test to see if you can, yourself, via spectral droop, determine the difference between one and two 3us pulses, with the onset of the two pulses separated by 5us?

You seem completely unaware of the nature or tone of scientific dialog. You persist in falsely accusing me of "attacking Dr. Kunchur", when in fact I have (and very gently) questioned the QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM that appeared here.

Questioning one's results is not the same as attacking the individual.

Do I need to give you basic lesson on scientific dialog?

Go try the experiment. See what distinguishing factors remain. Do it yourself. Your cell phone does a similar experiment at least 2000 times/second, quite successfully. Your HDTV, if you have one receiving broadcast HDTV, is doing it about 3.75 million times per second, and if you have a good picture on your screen, doing so successfully. (but don't ask me about the design of the HD modem, sigh, it's a classical standards camel)

Your TV can do it. Your cell phone can do it. If you have a cable modem, it can do it. If you have a modem on your computer, it can do it. If you have a bluetooth headset, it can do it, so why won't YOU even try?

Rather than trying to redirect the debate to your imaginary straw men, your illusory claims that I've changed my position, and your exhibition of repeated failure to even read, let alone accept the information in ANY, and I do mean ANY modern Fourier analysis or DSP textbook, just do the experiment.

What are you afraid of?

My goodness!

Allow me to help you.

Green is 1 pulse. Red is two, 5us delay,each half amplitude, sampling rate 44.1kHz, etc, etc, as we have discussed.

Both overall and expanded view shown.

Note: My previous plots were demonstrating the difference using a guassian pulse. These use a filter design much like modern DAC's.

The impulse response you see is of the ADC and DAC filters.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff228/jj_0001/plots/pulses.jpg

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff228/jj_0001/plots/bpulses.jpg

That is what you will see, modulo differences in your antialaising and antiimaging filters. You will see no difference of substance.

One sample at 44.1kHz corresponds to approximately 58 units on the horizontal axis if you find yourself in need of scaling. Vertical scale is arbitrary amplitude.

Q. E. D.

Now go try the experiment yourself.

The subject is you and Dr. Kunchur, not me. Why did you not contact Dr. Kunchur before or at least from page 1. Why not by page 10, page 20, page 30. Would J_J hype himself vs Dr. Kunchur the past few pages, if he ever wanted dialog with Dr. Kunchur?

Quote:
You keep appealing to authority, now it's time to appeal to my authority, son, I outrank most of the people on the planet in this subject,

Quote:
has engaged in a thoroughly offensive attack on a much more highly recognized individual in the field, namely me.

So J_J hypes himself as more highly recognized than all the PHD peers from universites, institutes etc. Self glory.

Why have you not waited for Dr. Kunchur's reply (and fellow university etc PHds) to your questions on the Ask Dr. Kunchur questions string. What are you afraid of.

Why do you continue to sneak around the question of whether you have done any testing with ultrasonics, evading the question for some 20 pages now.

The subject is about you and your continued attacks on Dr. Kunchur's credibility without him being present.

Those graphs prove nothing. You don't mention any meaningful conditions whatsoever, a typical tatic J_J has used over and over. I can only assume your graphs are bogus to manipulate the viewers, and I certainly don't trust you compared to Dr. Kunchur. He has backups/peer reviews. These pages will help you to see what happens, that J_J does not want you to see. No wonder he wishes not to discuss the topic with Dr. Kunchur from page 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Article...ool%20the%20eye

https://www.fractalus.com/info/antialias.htm

http://phong.com/tutorials/anti-alias/

http://www.grafx-design.com/02gen.html

As one can see, I show evidence whereas J_J does not, just rethoric. Everyone seems to understand except J_J, who just sits at his desk hyping himself as an expert vs Dr. Kunchur, as one can see the past few pages of his posts. Would J_J hype himself vs Dr. Kunchur if he ever wanted dialog with Dr. Kunchur?

Now Why did not you contact Dr. Kunchur before or at least from page 1. Why not by page 10, page 20, page 30.

Why have you not waited for Dr. Kunchur's reply (and fellow PHds) to your questions on the Ask Dr. Kunchur questions string.

Why do you continue to sneak around the question of whether you have done any testing with ultrasonics, evading the question for 20 pages.

As the viewers can see, J_J sidesteps any question that might embarrass him. The only thing he can do is redirect questions to me instead of dialog with Dr. Kunchur, which he should have done before or on page 1.

Quote:
As the viewers can see, J_J sidesteps any question that might embarrass him. The only thing he can do is redirect questions to me instead of dialog with Dr. Kunchur, which he should have done before or on page 1.

And you evade the facts again, after lying about what various status I've claimed.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever regarding the nature of scientific discourse, or the difference between commenting on a quote (and specifying that you are commenting only on the material in the quote) and attacking the author.

So, stop evading and try the experiment.

Then you will find out that my criticism is fully and absolutely justified.

While you're at it, take a truth pill and stop lying about what I've said.

Go show this to yourself, since you won't take the word of a world-class expert here,

ROTFL!! I assume you are referring to deceitful debating tactics. As that's the only thing you're a 'world class expert' in. It's certainly not audio, as you don't even know what values to expect for xover caps, you get confused over simple technical terms, as Dr. Kunchur pointed out you couldn't even follow what was being argued in his papers, and you can't read a simple plot and find a 48khz sample even after it was reprinted sixteen times. I could go on, but why bother? You have clearly demonstrated in this thread that you haven't the first clue as to how to conduct yourself in a scientific manner. If this was a discussion among real scientists, you would last about 13 seconds before being forcefully ejected from the room for making a nuisance of yourself. Here's but one quick example of that:

You seem completely unaware of the nature or tone of scientific dialog. You persist in falsely accusing me of "attacking Dr. Kunchur", when in fact I have (and very gently) questioned the QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO HIM that appeared here.

Questioning one's results is not the same as attacking the individual.

Bullshit. You said 'he didn't even understand the basics of digital signal processing'. You actually said that of a phd'd doctored scientist and his peer-reviewed work on DSP, without realizing how much of a lunatic you sound like. That's where you lost all credibility btw, and never regained a shred of it since. I'm sorry but it's just one lie after another with you, and you're getting very tedious. Steve is right. This is Dr. Kunchur's paper. You should be contacting him, and allow him to support his work. The reason you won't is because you're not a scientist. You have never done the research he has, don't know anything about this research, and If you really think anyone on this forum aside from your acolytes is going to believe your strawman arguments and misleading nonsense over that of entire organizations of multi disciplinary scientists, professors and peer-reviewed processes, along with scientific data that has been established for over 50 years , than you're more deluded than anyone could have imagined. You've gone on for 51 pages denying things you clearly stated, reversing yourself on numerous positions, ignoring evidence that you could not refute, and throughout all of this, you haven't even bothered to read the 3 papers yet, that you're desperately trying to discredit! Hence the reason you still keep using the weasel words 'according to what was quoted to me!'. And you actually fantasize that people are going to take you seriously if you make some more pathetic appeals to authority that mean nothing in your case?

Dr. Kunchur has pointed out your unscientific behaviour, and I have to agree. You've embarassed yourself immensely, in this thread. Go and initiate that conference call yourself, if Kunchur's papers mean enough to you to obsess over and try to discredit them for 51 pages straight. I suspect you haven't done so yet because you know very well that in the real world, you can't pretend to be something you're not; which you do all over the internet web forums. Don't forget to give us a transcript of the call! Obviously, we all know you have neither the courage to do that, or the knowledge to try to discredit a real scientist directly, on his or her work. So failing that, I suggest you end this childish posturing of yours that's not going anywhere, and submit your questions to the real scientist like a good boy, and wait for a proper response. At this point, all you're doing is pure trolling.

Plus, because I encourage real science, as opposed to pseudoscientific posturing on a web forum, I'll leave you with a third option. How about YOU go and try the experiments yourself, and reproduce Kunchur's work, with full details of your research. I don't expect to hear from you for the next 5 years, because that's how long it should take. If you take 2 days to dismiss a serious 5-year peer-reviewed study from real scientists, based on a few quotes you read on a web forum thread and this misguided idea that you knew anything about the subject, then maybe you should also pretend you're a doctor and try practicing medicine. If you think all your misleading and posturing in this thread has gotten you far, then see how far -that- will get you!

Well, I'm still waiting for a reply from the good doctor.

I hope by this time the people insisting that their cell phones and HDTV receivers don't work realize otherwise, and that the silly claims that time resolution in a PCM system does not depend on amplitude resolution of that system, or that time resolution is limited to the sampling interval, are just that, silly, easily controverted claims.

I also hope that people now realize that questioning someone's CLAIM is not the same as attacking the person, and that questioning in that fashion is the basis of scientific dialog.

Finally, I hope that people realize that for all the lies, mistakes, and misrepresentations we've seen in this thread, the original statement I made of "a does not imply b" is still true. The question regarding the possible audibility of supersonic sounds via some kind of intermodulation, perhaps, or for some unknown reason, is neither confirmed nor denied by the fact that the REASON given, which appears from all the quotes here to be a totally incorrect reasoning, is simply wrong.

Saying "a is true because of b" has no reading on A, positive or negative, when 'b' is false.

And in this case, 'b' is false. That's plain to see.

> when you have earned as much esteem as Dr. Kunchur, have published as many refereed
> works, been appointed head of University Department..identified yourself..

Dr. Kunchar is, to be blunt, technically ignorant and has not earned any esteem. However, he is in the early stages of his career and so there is a fair chance he will recognise this in himself and do something about it or, more likely, he will concentrate his efforts on becoming an administrator where this is less of an impediment to career progression.

> aren't there any other forums you can go to? I mean... What is your point in posting
> here? are you deluded enough to think that your attacks(under the guise of
> "scientific argument") will inspire a shift in thinking? you are swimming upstream
> here. You know that, right?

This is a fair question and I hope JJ tries to answer it honestly. The community here is clearly strongly opposed to the scientific view of sound and audio and so it is reasonable to expect people that do not belong to either leave or behave like a guest (e.g. Ethan and, hopefully, myself when not trying to provoke a response).

Quote:
...when you have earned as much esteem as Dr. Kunchur, have published as many refereed works, been appointed head of University Department..identified yourself..

I'm sure he's quite knowledgeable in his area of specialty, which is superconductors. But anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of DSP will recognize that he has zero knowledge in this area, yet has made a number of claims about the subject - which happen to be false. You in particular, and the high-end audio business in general, are hung up on this "cult of personality" thing. Any electrical engineering junior with even an introductory course in DSP will recognize his claims as wrong. If the Acoustical Society of America bought into them, then they need to get their act together by putting someone with DSP knowledge and experience on their review staff. It seems almost beyond belief that they have not done so previously.

You need to get off this hero worship bullshit and concern yourself with the fundamental issue here - namely what is true and what is not. That's all that matters, not who is "esteemed", in this case by the ignorant.

Johnston, you realize that nobody here takes you seriously, right? When you have earned as much esteem as Dr. Kunchur, have published as many refereed works, been appointed head of University Department..identified yourself..

LOL! I don't see any of those things happening in my lifetime, or whatever's left of jj's... Maybe when Borat gets elected president.
Actually, nobody on any audiophile forum takes jj seriously; other than the fanboys that seem to follow him around from forum to forum, as he bashes and blazes his way across the audiophile "interwebs". I think if he realized this, he would have stopped wasting his time two decades ago. So I presume this is another important thing that has escaped jj's understanding. Hence the perpetual provoking, trolling, tossing out hand grenades..... and selling himself as a legend in his own mind.

aren't there any other forums you can go to?

Well, yes. Hydrogen Audio (where he came from), AVS, DIY to name a couple.

here is an idea, Johnston..
go find Arny Kreuger on usenet..you, he and krabapple...

Do you not like associating yourself with others of like mind???

This very "trio of trolls" already associate with each other on Hydrogen. But you see, the problem is, HA is full of pseudoscientific zealots. That's why these three drifted here, at the mere mention of Sean Olive. To find new converts to their anti-high end audio cult.

I mean... What is your point in posting here? are you deluded enough to think that your attacks(under the guise of "scientific argument") will inspire a shift in thinking?you are swimming upstream here. You know that, right?
" target="_blank">http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm

Him and Arny both; they've been at their delusion for over a generation. I think of them as the Mutt n' Jeff of the anti-audio community.

FYI, neither this jj troll nor the "krabapple" troll are doctors (100% confirmed). Andy is a dick however, that I have confirmed from the best of my sources. What all four of these goofs have in common however, is that they are either obtuse, silly in the head or stoned enough to try to convince people to discard refereed 5-year studies done by doctored scientists and university professors, in favour of their confused, fallacious pseudoscientific blathering on an internet forum. Needless to say, none of these goofballs knows what a 5 year refereed scientific study even looks like, let alone actually doing such a study themselves that would directly challenge Dr. Kunchur's. None of them have even done studies of any kind into infrasonics - which would explain why they keep mangling the science, and contradicting themselves every other day.

i hope you realize , too...that DR(are you a PhD? is johnston or krabapple?) Kunchur was not the only source of information for the papers he presented....

it was a collaboration between many disciplines, with input from experts in the cited fields...

To add to that, I just got confirmation from a Stanford professor in engineering, who agrees with Dr. Kunchur that "44 kHz is not high enough to reproduce a 5us pulse (even one)".

The million dollar question today is..... why are these internet troll slash scientist wanna-bes killing themselves to try to convince us that 44.1k is more than good enough, when even Sony and Philips would laugh at them today? I smell an agenda....

Quote:
publish your own damned paper

As anyone who has done even a modicum of dilligence knows alerady, I have published quite a feww "damned paper"s, and in fact some of them in this very area.

So, I have. Furthermore, I've been recognized by both AES and IEEE as a fellow, which means, by the way, that one has been recognized for basic contribution to the science and engineering, despite sasaudio's tinfoil-hat theories. Then there's the field award from the IEEE. Perhaps you, yourself, should find out what that means...

So, really, fella, if you want to play the 'authority' game, I'm one of them. Live with it.

Either somebody misquoted the guy or he made a mistake.

Happens to everyone.

Edited for bogus tags.

Quote:

Quote:
publish your own damned paper

As anyone who has done even a modicum of dilligence knows alerady, I have published quite a feww "damned paper"s, and in fact some of them in this very area.

So, I have. Furthermore, I've been recognized by both AES and IEEE as a fellow, which means, by the way, that one has been recognized for basic contribution to the science and engineering, despite sasaudio's tinfoil-hat theories. Then there's the field award from the IEEE. Perhaps you, yourself, should find out what that means...

So, really, fella, if you want to play the 'authority' game, I'm one of them. Live with it.

Either somebody misquoted the guy or he made a mistake.

Happens to everyone.

Edited for bogus tags.

So you are now claiming you have not even read Dr. Kunchur's papers even though the link has been available since the first post.

Quote:
Either somebody misquoted the guy or he made a mistake.

And don't blame me. I happen to believe in established science like third party Dr. Kunchur and his PhD peers from other universities and institutes, 3 national organizations, who agree with Dr. Kunchur's assessment.

Acoustical Society of America (ASA)

Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO) (which I don't see you mentioning)

American Physical Society (APS)

As well as professors from the U of I, Stanford, the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook which is a collaboration of 26 engineers from RCA (approx 1400 pages), and even Sony, Hatachi, Pioneer who produce higher rez players. All either completely disagree or partially disagree with you to some extent on some issue in this string. So you are fighting against DSD, SACD as well.

Your got a scandal raging, that is your problem.

By the way, you want to fully explain how your recognitions relate to the subject at hand [that Dr. Kunchur (and peers, national associations etc concur) that higher sampling rates are necessary in audio equipment] please fully elaborate.

Here are the links to Dr. Kunchur's credentials. PhD in 1988, so 20 plus years post doctorate work.
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf

Take care.

Quote:
why are you here? We have nothing to gain by your being here, nor do you.... id bet that most of us would like to see you leave..

Oh, look, now NC is omniscient here. He can read everyone's mind, tell us what everyone thinks, and speak ex-cathedra for everyone.

Mate, you're approaching the tinfoil-hate status of sasaudio.

Why am I here, same reason as most other people. I enjoy good reproduction of good music.

Quote:

You are not going to inspire any shifts in thinking.

The evidence is quite to the contrary. I won't change the thinking of people who choose to be ignorant and muleheaded, of course.

Quote:

I wish you had a FRACTION of the grace, manners, respect that Dr. Kunchur has.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

Johnston, you realize that nobody here takes you seriously, right?
when you have earned as much esteem as Dr. Kunchur, have published as many refereed works, been appointed head of University Department..identified yourself..

at the moment,
all you are doing is hiding in a bunker, tossing out hand grenades, provoking, trolling... not a great battle strategy for one who wants so badly to be taken in earnest.

aside from that, Johnston, and forgive my being blunt..

you are a dick.

the big question is "why"?

aren't there any other forums you can go to? I mean... What is your point in posting here? are you deluded enough to think that your attacks(under the guise of "scientific argument") will inspire a shift in thinking? you are swimming upstream here. You know that, right?

Best SASAudio paranoid rant parody I've seen. Nicely done.

Btw, have you heard from Dr. Kunchur at all since he promised to find a DSP expert to check his work?

He posted an 11-page PDF reply as mentioned by nc last night in the questions thread. (I haven't looked at it yet.)

Quote:
He posted an 11-page PDF reply as mentioned by nc last night in the questions thread. (I haven't looked at it yet.)

I've commented over there. Basically, the whole issue of time resolution in PCM is conceded and then equivocated.

What's missing is a discussion of the spectra of one pulse vs. two pulses separated by the infamours 5 microseconds, and how that is in fact in DL range at 20khz.

Being that both J_J and Krabapple have made deflamatory, hate filled statements about me just above (and over the whole string), while at the same time posting in another string (Post Questions to Dr. Kunchur) and conceding to Dr. Kunchur (Dr. Kunchur's peers, 3 national organizations, and me), that "blurring" does take place, I am posting these comments here. (This is an excellent example of how some treat us while we help to improve the audio experience.)

I also find it interesting that J_Js employer manufacturers digital equipment with 48khz as the highest sampling rate. Also, why is not J_J not considered an insider, manufacturer with required signature? Afterall, he is attempting to manipulate the audio market to his companies advantage.

http://www.neuralaudio.com/professionals/television_broadcast/products/neural_surround/upmix/

Quote:
Neural

Boy-o-boy. It's a good thing I haven't ever even looked in this thread. (reading the last two pages) Missed that one. Whew! (kinda feels like the end moments after a battle scene in 'BraveHeart')

I mean, being someone who executes extreme resolution clocking designs that are applicable in Digital Audio design and has heard and source tracked every clocking jitter issue under the sun-and fixed it, I'm in a perfect position to comment, here. I'm damned glad that I'm not....

Quote:
Mate, you're approaching the tinfoil-hate status of sasaudio.

Since comparisons have been made (after you dared to compare yourself with a scientist), I observe another thing that really marks the differences between you and Dr. Kunchur. Your trollish, bitter, hateful, unprovoked personal attacks. Not only does he not engage in what you do regularly on audio forums, but unlike you, he doesn't even have the time to. Also, I don't know what this obsession you have with "tinfoil" is, but I can't help imagining you must have the inside of all your rooms covered in it.

Quote:
Why am I here, same reason as most other people. I enjoy good reproduction of good music.

So go and listen to music. What does that have to do with you being here?

Quote:

Quote:
You are not going to inspire any shifts in thinking.

The evidence is quite to the contrary. I won't change the thinking of people who choose to be ignorant and muleheaded, of course.

No more than anyone could change your ignorant and muleheaded thinking, of course. Realizing you have a painful aversion to ever providing evidence for the things you say, I'll try anyway: in which members did you create a "shift in thinking" on this forum since you started trolling us? (Do not name members who already shared your pseudoscientific thinking).

Quote:

Quote:
I wish you had a FRACTION of the grace, manners, respect that Dr. Kunchur has.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Speaking for everyone who has witnessed your behaviour here and contrasting your loud, arm-flailing, drama-queen theatrics to Dr. Kunchur's quiet, calm, and mannered exchanges, I think your response pretty well reveals what kind of fantasy world you live in.

Quote:

Quote:
why are you here? We have nothing to gain by your being here, nor do you.... id bet that most of us would like to see you leave..

Oh, look, now NC is omniscient here.

No, he's simply telling it like it is. We have nothing to gain by your being here, and though you may still hope to reel in fresh converts to your anti-audiophile cult for whatever that does to your ego, you should realize you really have nothing to gain by being here as well. Other than further injuring your reputation, undermining your credibility, and establishing yourself as a career troll on audio forums. Do you really think it has helped your friend Arny's career to do what you have been doing here? Last I heard he was selling pencils on the subway. And that was only after the promotion.

Quote:
He can read everyone's mind, tell us what everyone thinks, and speak ex-cathedra for everyone.

He certainly read mine, and just given some of the emails I've received about you, I know were not the only ones . Would it satisfy you if we put the question to a poll?

Interestingly enough, there is a drummer that is on record as coming down on the beat to the tune of 100,000th of a sec.

There are multiple credible and scientifically conducted studies of so called 'psychic' phenomena where a random generator with 'hidden' value (hidden from the tested participant) changes take place to the tune of over 10,000 changes a second and the participants get the number (type and area to 'guess on the timing of') 'right'.. about +60% of the time. Which is WELL beyond chance. This is in 10,000+ trials in 100's (different persons) of cases.

As long as we go through the effort of remembering what science means, this sort of evidence should cause no issues -but it is noted that it does arouse the emotions.

In another thread there is an argument about the value or correctness of relativity. Is it religion or is religion in doubt of relativity?

Both.

Relativity is based on vectoral summing as a short cut in Maxwell's original works. The original works were quarternion values, which were basically a spiral force that was summed out to zero by Heaviside -Heaviside's simplistic vectoral summing.. This is patently wrong.

Heaviside took out immense dimensional vortex forces and stresses simply as they summed to a very, very NEAR 'zero' to HIM.

BUT..the reality was that they included IMMENSE vortex forces of a unidirectional nature, that took place in a specific spin state.

Like I said elsewhere, reality is 2-d stress fields of infinite amplitude, oscillating in their planes..and integrating together to produce immense and near equal stressing -to create micro vortexes of 2-d energy..that results in a vector that we observe FROM..that we call the 3-d world. (Time is a rider: an artifact)

THAT..is what Maxwell's original works are all about and that is what was lost and hidden for the past 100+ years.

And suddenly..when you understand it.....there are no limits.

Of any kind.

Quote:

There are multiple credible and scientifically conducted studies of so called 'psychic' phenomena where a random generator with 'hidden' value (hidden from the tested participant) changes take place to the tune of over 10,000 changes a second and the participants get the number (type and area to 'guess on the timing of') 'right'.. about +60% of the time. Which is WELL beyond chance. This is in 10,000+ trials in 100's (different persons) of cases.

Are we talking about the PEAR work?

No, not at all. Nothing to do with audio. heh.

Quote:
No, not at all. Nothing to do with audio. heh.

Uh, the PEAR experiment had nothing to do with audio.

Now what were you talking about?