| 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
Where is your proof? Yet again, none we see and for good reason.
Remember, dozens, if not hundreds of PHDs, from peer groups, experts in their fields etc have agreed with Dr. Kunkur, or else the paper would have concluded otherwise. So obviously mainstream science does not agree with you.
By the way, why haven't you asked questions so Ncdrawal could relay it to Dr. Kunkur to respond? This would demonstrate courtesy, respect, and a civilized above board discussion. Instead you continue to attack Dr. Kunkur. How neighborly of you.
Trusting anything you state is a risky venture.
"What's clear is that Michelle J. Frogger and the others falsely posing as experts and saviors of the religion of the High End (which must be separated from those of us who like high-quality sound, please, OR those who prefer various euphonic effects, all of which pass under "preference") have no realization that the bandwidth of the widest filter in the human ear is about 6kHz wide, and that even inside of a bandwidth under 100 Hz (at 300Hz center frequency, for instance), one can resolve 50 microseonds in interaural time difference."
[quoteThat makes about as much sense. You do win the Trifecta Award of the Day for the longest run-on conditional sentence containing the most logical fallacies, however.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am hardly responsible for your inability to understand good english. Got any morphic fields to play baseball on?"
Oh, I understand your English just fine. The reason I commented on your remarks is that I can't help noticing, over the years, that what you Naysayers frequently say is lifted right out of Zen and the Art of Debunkery. I.e., your arguments are formulaic. I suppose this results from all those years of "Skepticism." Smirk.
Guidance from Zen and the Art of Debunkery:
1. Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say, "I rest my case."
2. If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass hallucination.
3. Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation.
And, remember, that time resolution can be shown to be resolvable within a 44/16 system. So what's your point?
Again you offer no proof there are no changes.
At approx 20khz, rise time is approx 8us. Every component/stage added will increase the rise time as well as lower the overall frequency response.
And we can discriminate to 5us by your own admission, let alone Dr. Kunkur's conclusions, remember. So you are disputing basic science J_J. Have anymore fish stories to tell?
Which is why we examine actual, relevant, and well-known sources of impairment that have nothing to do with 44/16 systems. Sources of impairment that date back to Steinburg, Fletcher, and Snow, from the 1920's. KNOWN sources of impairment that are documented and published by the very people who originated the whole idea of electronically reproduced audio. Work from those people that stands to this day, and is known to be accurate and important, but that your present-day stereo system simply ignores.
Can you prove they are all still relevant, or just relevant to your arguement now.
Actually, you only read other people's work, don't you? So you can pick and choose what to believe?. And you still have not address two questions.
1) You still have not addressed the issue, nor proven, how Dr. Kunchur is mistaken. Mainstream audio/science from universities and institutes doesn't by into your radical theories/comments.
2) You still refusing to address what work, testing you have performed at ultrasonic frequencies (above 20khz).
The proof that Dr. Kunchur is correct is that mainstream science backs him up, not your smoke and mirror comments.
By the way, what happened to you emailing directly to Dr. Kunchur?
There were no "crazy antics," Mr. Krueger. Scott filed a lawsuit against you in August 2003 following you stating as fact on Usenet, with no basis, that he was a p***phile. You suggested the same was true of others, including myself. You also suggested the heis filing the lawsuit was because he was "part of the Atkinson-led conspriracy [sic] against [you]." Your making such baseless accusations would seem more of a "crazy antic," Mr. Krueger, though I assumed that it was more of an attempt on your part to taint Google searches with the false accusation (which is why I have not fully identified the word used).
It wasn't thrown out, according to the groups.google.com archive, but had been misfiled, requiring it be done over. I imagine Scott took pity on you as he decided not to proceed.
Whatever, if you continue to bring up the subject of your past baseless accusations of illegal behavior by others or make new such accusations, I shall ask Stephen Mejias to delete the relevant posts of yours. Because we believe in a light moderating hand with this forum does not mean we tolerate your antisocial behavior.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
You're lying of delusional, Scott. This whole interchange started when you said quite exactly that the article didn't exist.
Furthermore, I just entered "Greiner" (clipped from your post) and plugged it into the JAES search engine.
I got numerous hits, which contradicts your claims.
The first hit says "Loudspeaker cables are investigated..."
Scott, that's three strikes against you.
Had you signed your posts with your actual name Scott, I would have known that you are the poor delusional soul who has been entertaining us with your crazy antics on RAHE.
I would have also known that you are the poor delusional soul who tried to sue me for libel in California Superior Court over a post on Usenet, but had your case thrown out of court.
Wow this is some pretty crazy ad hominem with zero content. If you think I claimed the article didn't "exist" cite the quote in context. I must say I never knew that Scott was a secret alias for my real name, Scott. I'm so sneaky.....
Never said the article didn't exist.
You're lying of delusional, Scott.
You know, I don't even have to know who wrote the response, when I read something like this. I can spot a "Kroogerism" from a long way away. You're well known for saying things that make absolutely no sense, and using a language you appear to have invented.
This whole interchange started when you said quite exactly that the article didn't exist.
So where is your evidence that Scott said that? You think it's necessary to provide us with yet another example of where you and your Hydrogen buddies keep trying to mislead the public with vigorous assertions of false statements that have zero evidence? Do you wonder why I always assume that if something comes out of your head, and there isn't a mountain of evidence to back it up, that it's a blatant lie? I don't think anyone cares whether Greiner wrote a paper on rainbows and lily leaves. But if you're going to say he did, well with the reputation you have for making stuff up, in the future you'd better be ready to back up anything you claim with direct, hard evidence. Otherwise, keep it to yourself.
Scott, that's three strikes against you.
Had you signed your posts with your actual name Scott, I would have known that you are the poor delusional soul who has been entertaining us with your crazy antics on RAHE.
I would have also known that you are the poor delusional soul who tried to sue me for libel in California Superior Court over a post on Usenet, but had your case thrown out of court.
Scott has always had a good reputation on the groups. You on the other hand.... as an eyewitness to this, I can attest to the fact that it is YOU that has a long large history of "crazy antics" on discussion groups Krueger; which are not even limited to accusing half the group of sending you child porn (only the "subjectivist" half of course). All anyone has to do is type this name you've been trolling under for two decades into Google Groups (including whatever variations of this name you've used, and whatever sockpuppet incarnations as well), and they'll get an idea of who and what you are. Your record and your reputation on the internet speaks for itself.
What troubles me is to see that after 20 years, you haven't changed a bit. And you're beginning to repeat the same patterns of belligerence here, trying to do for Stereophile what you did for RAO, RAHE, RAP, and all audio discussion groups that you weren't and couldn't be thrown off of. You always blame your opponent for your egregious behaviour. People here should understand it isn't a coincidence that over your history of "participation" on audio groups, several individuals have either taken you to court or talked about taking you to court for lying defamation of character. Even for Usenet, this is not a common occurence. I know of at least two members of this forum in that list, and I can't even say how long that list is. Because I can only talk about the people I'm aware of who have raised legal issue with your behaviour.
Don't ever forget one important fact: you're a guest here. This isn't Usenet, this is private property. You don't have a god-given right to be here, and troll people every which way you want, as you are used to doing. Far as I'm concerned, you've already used up two of your strikes; so it is in your interest to act like you have if you wish to remain a member here.
btw, it is DR. *KUNCHUR*,
not KUNKER,
I've been aware of this for years and I've written about it many times. When I play orchestra bells (glockenspiel) in the local orchestra and hit two adjacent high notes loudly, it's very easy to hear the low difference tone. But I'd prefer to have all that crap filtered out by the anti-aliasing filter. So for me, "accurately reproducing" IMD inside our ears is not a compelling argument for capturing ultrasonic content.
--Ethan
What troubles me Frog is the fact that 20 years ago was 1989, while I didn't start posting to groups until 1996.
Letsee Frog, just a few days ago you had my family living in Germany, and now this?
Frog, are you just another one of delusional Scott's sockpuppets? ;-)
You so fonny Meestah "J_J"! I am of course, laughing at you demonstrating for us your profound ignorance of science, yet again. You clearly know nothing about morphic fields, other than you associating Geoff Kait and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake with the idea. But knowing only that is enough for you to make a handwaving dismissal of the entire study of morphic fields, mocking Geoff for his espousal of such with your dumb little baseball joke. Just as you did with your handwaving dismissal of Dr. Kunchur's study here (whom you had the gall to insult professionally, saying he wasn't even qualified to do the study). Which as we saw from his response, was based on your deplorable ignorance of his work. Not "science", as you so boldly claimed. Didn't stop you from your ceaseless misinterpretations and misappropriations of science, to anyone you think or hope will listen to your quasi-scientific rubbish.
Well guess what, Mr. "J_J"? Even Einstein recognized morphic fields. But then, given how ignorant you really are of real scientific work, and how much pseudoscience you keep trying to pass off as real science, I'm not going to assume you even know who that is. Yeah, you're a scientist like I'm the president of the united states. Keep posturing like you do. While you're certainly not a reliable source for knowledge, you are a reliable source for entertainment.
Got any more ignorant comments you plan to share with us? Let me know beforehand, so I can go make some popcorn. 
People really have no idea just how far you can take this information field stuff.
When I played violin (which has strings tuned in fifths, ie, a 3:2 ratio of frequencies), I was taught to tune the instrument by listening to the difference tone produced by two strings, which was an octave below the lower of the two. Some organs, I believe, use a similar mechanism for producing a "phantom" fundamental from pipes that are limited in size by the building's architecture.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Um, what you're doing is comparing the 2nd harmonic of one to the 3rd harmonic of the other, both of which are at nearly (exactly, for a just scale, as opposed to tempered) the same frequency.
The glockenspeil issue is different, it is pretty clear that the level near a glockenspiel is high enough to actually make the air nonlinear.
At that point, all bets are off.
jj
Thanks for the explanation of frequency resolution, down to a few cents at around 500 Hz. That would explain how I hear differences away from 440 Hz of 1% or less.
Sorry to disagree, JJ. But no, the low-frequency difference tone is quite evident. You adjust the tuning of the higher string until the LF tone (in your head) is consonant with the pitch of the lower-tuned string, which means that the frequencies of the strings must be in the desired 3:2 ratio.
Try it with two loudspeakers, each producing a sinewave tone. They need to be fairly close to your ears, of course. I haven't measured the spl of a violin placed 6" from the left ear, but the sound is _not_ quiet.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Of course it is, you hear the beats due to the synchrony of the various attacks at various points on the basilar membrane. The 2/3 harmonic is the biggest component of this, but it is reinforced by the other two leading edges of the lowest frequency signal, and by the first 'n' harmonics, which will vary by instrument, etc, but in general, the more harmonics, the stronger this sensation of the "ghost fundamental" will be, because of the synchronous firing across basilar membrane.
More than "place" is involved in low-frequency pitch perception. If you want to call it a nonlinearity, fine, but it's in the ear, as part of the detection method, well past any form of cochlear filters, etc.
I'm pretty sure the nonlinearity that causes IM tones playing bells loudly occurs inside my ear. I suppose it could be in the air too, but I imagine the majority is inside my ear. It also sounds like it's inside my head rather than coming from the same place as the bells.
--Ethan
You, sir, rock. I tip my hat to you. Frog's reply is so good I think it speaks for itself.
Accusation of 'quasi-scientific rubbish' from someone touting morphic resonance is particularly 'telling'.
And before that, John Atkinson showing up at last, to slap Arny's wrist for being 'anti-social'...long after JJ has been repeatedly libeled on the thread as a liar and fraud by clowns like Frog and SASAudio....accusations JA *knows* to be false. But nary a word from him on *that* bit of anti-social behavior.
To paraphrase the old Pink Floyd tune, it's nearly a laugh, but really a cry.
I simply provided evidence which neither you nor your colleagues have yet to refute with evidence. If that makes you and your friends "liars" and "frauds" then so be it. I posted Dr. Kunchur's email response on page 30, although arny and J_J's errors occurred on page 1 and 2 of this string. So errors were produced by arny and J_J right away, yet you never corrected them. Why not Krabapple, as you hype yourself as an expert.
Arny, page 1:
Which you, krabapple, Steve Sullivan, did not correct. Why not? Why was Dr. Kunchur the one to correct the errors.
And J_J, on page 2:
Which you, krabapple did not correct. Again why not? Why was Dr. Kunchur the one to correct the errors.
From Dr. Kunchur's response (page 30), to the above posts.
Let me add Dr. Kunchur is discussing one channel, as underlined and elsewhere.
So why did you not, krabapple, correct the two errors arny and J_J posted?
Then J_J cleverly used two channels, not one, to produce a 5us shift because he knew he could not do it with one channel, as Dr. Kunchur indicated above (underlined for emphasis).
Which you, krabapple let slip by. Afterall, if you consider them experts, you must know sampling as well. So why did you not correct them??? Instead Dr. Kunchur and I corrected them, and you call me a clown. How interesting.
I hope this clears things up with the viewers about my record. I simply present evidence so we can arrive at the truth, which is beneficial for the consumer.
Great post, as usual, SAS.
Beers are on me.
Krabby wrote:
Okay, shhhhhh! Everybody quiet down now. It appears that after "enlightening" us with misleading pseudoscience, the "Krabapple" troll has returned, and is now trying to teach us how to be "social", and "avoid anti-social behaviour"!
"Nearly" a laugh, Mr. Krabapple? No, I'd say that's definitely good for a laugh! 
SASAudio wrote:
That's a great question, SAS. Why DIDN'T Krabapple correct the serious technical errors made early on and repeated throughout this debate by "j_j" and Krueger, to name two? Why DID it take a real working professional scientist like Dr. Kunchur to expose their fallacious arguments in this thread? Especially when all of these Hydrogen Audio boys "claim" to be "professional experts", with "superior knowledge", who told us Dr. Kunchur didn't even understand the basics of digital sampling, despite having published peer reviewed papers on it. Hmm.... let me guess..... does the answer include the words "liars" and "frauds"?
I think this debate has been very educational for all. I don't know if the Hydrogen trolls will continue to remain here, after this embarassing showing in a scientific debate, no less. But I know that if I see these boys continuing to make dogmatic arguments that are inevitably exposed as misleading misinformation, and trying to hype themselves (and cover their ignorance) with these risible appeals to authority, I won't be looking at the words "professional" or "expert" in quite the same way again.
I think this thread should be made a "sticky". Not here, I mean, but they should post it on their cult audio forum, "Hydrogen Audio", to make an example of brothers "Woodinville" (aka "j_j"), "Krabapple", "Kruger" and "Axon". Oh, I guess they could rename it to something like "Debating The HEA Enemy -- Do's & Don'ts: How to avoid getting your ass handed over to you on a plate during a scientific debate, while attempting to mislead the consumer".....
Lesson #1: When you are embroiled in a hot debate against the high end audio enemy, and trying to discredit a real scientist who authored a series of papers you never read and don't have the expertise to understand (let alone argue against), DON'T encourage the opposite team to bring in the actual author of the paper. If this is unavoidable, reply with a hand-waving dismissal of anything the author says, on the basis that he is biased (because after all, he wrote the paper).
LOL!
Many of us have been sitting on the sidelines, just watching these jokers, who on their HQ refer to us "audiophools", make genuine fools of themselves throughout this thread. And let me tell you, it's been worth the price of admission.
I think none of your objections are valid. From a theoretical standpoint, Arny's claim about time resolution is correct. If you've got an ideal bandlimited antialiasing filter and a good dither, 0.4ns of time resolution should be observable. The fact that I myself have empirically observed <2ns of time resolution with very little effort should itself be a pretty significant argument in support of this. Similarly jj's conclusions are equally valid.
Moreover, many of us (including jj) have made specific and logical objections to Kunchur's statements, which you conveniently ignore. And given the large number of fallacious rhetorical crutches I see in your posts of the ad hominem/appeal to authority/etc variety, at best, you seem to be a pretty clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Sounds good to me Buddha. Thanks.
-----
Axon's post (his post has been stated before) can be completely responded to by reading my last post (pay especial attention to Dr. Kunchur's comments) #69868 on page 38. Notice Dr. has peer, 3 organizations, plus much more, reviews, whilst Axon, J_J, Krabapple etc present none.
Notice how Axon leaves out that J_J uses two channels.
------
Some may know Jneutron. Jneutron has a PHD and works at Fermilab in the magnetics department, if I am correct. I believe Jneutron has been into audio for some 7 years or more. For those who may not know about Fermilab, here is a link.
http://www.fnal.gov/
Of course Fermilab does not just hire any phd. Anyway, here is what he said about those associated with AES.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=851127
Jneutron:
Sound similar to what happened here?
"Some may know Jneutron. Jneutron has a PHD and works at Fermilab in the magnetics department, if I am correct. I believe Jneutron has been into audio for some 7 years or more. For those who may not know about Fermilab, here is a link.
http://www.fnal.gov/
Of course Fermilab does not just hire any phd. Anyway, here is what he said about those associated with AES."
Jneutron was actually up in Upton at Brookhaven the last time we spoke. But I'm sure Fermi Labs is OK, too.
Cheers
Wow. I'm not sure where I may have heard of him (possibly HA, AA, or DIY), but this guy really has his finger on the pulse of these AES types. Although he's referring to a situation on another forum, he might as well be talking about the boys from Hydrogen who descended upon our forum to make complete asses of themselves, because that's exactly what we have seen happening here. Some appear to have some knowledge of audio theory but only in a small subset of the whole (ie. "j_j", "Axon"). When they apply their limited knowledge to everything they feel to, is where their dogmatism takes over. Other's can't figure out how to engineer their way out of a paper bag ("Krueger", "Winer"). While others come in, both barrels blazing, talking glibly about something they do not well understand ("Krabapple", "Xenophanes").
I think that gives us a very nice overview of what the AES is like, and why (generally speaking) an organization purporting to be about the science of audio, seems to care not a whit about the aspect of quality in music reproduction. The most important one to audiophiles, unfortunately.
"I think that gives us a very nice overview of what the AES is like."
AES got nothin' on New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926692.500-feedback.html
OMFG. I don't know what business this "NewScientist" thinks it has talking about audio. Particularly when their stupid comments against audio products released by Denon and MD amount to nothing more than "An anonymous guy Joe Blow told us about this mockworthy audio product that sounds so ridiculous to us... Don't you readers all agree it's ridiculous and unscientific??!". Declaring an audio product is snake oil based on conjecture alone, not even troubling to listen to it, let alone review it. How very "scientificistic" of them! Who the f edits this rag, James Randi? I haven't seen such a brilliant display of "telepathic journalism" since the Jim Austin hack did a similar hands-off "review" of the Intelligent Chip for Stereophile.
And if you think these ignorant dilletantes did a number on you, check out the front cover of this month's issue. Where they feature yours truly in a yoga stance (damn paparazzi's! That's the last time I attend the yoga in the park festival...). Above me they put the caption "The Strangest Force" (a reference to them struggling to understand the concept of "gravity"). Here's how they insult me in the caption next to the pic of the current issue on their webpage: "Those who believe in the paranormal are good at finding illusory correspondences". http://www.newscientist.com/issue/current
I don't know about you, but I'm cancelling my subscription to "The New (Pseudo)Scientist" asap.
As much as I like seeing my name in print, I'm not quite up to paying the 25 bob to download the article in the Journal of Acoustics Society of America (our oldest and one assumes most respected acoustics journal), but your truly is featured (blush). (I did pay once and it was worth every penny.)
A Short History of Bad Acoustics
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 120, Issue 4, pp. 1807-1815 (October 2006)
Issue Date: October 2006
ABSTRACTREFERENCES (32)CITING ARTICLES
Buy This PDF
Your post did nothing of the sort. If anything, the fact that you believe such a response (a fallacious appeal to Dr. Kunchur's authority and to his fallacious reasoning which I have already challenged on technical grounds) to be logically cogent to my response seems to reinforce your lack of education on the matter, which no amount of appeals to authority, etc will ever assuage. And as I have stated earlier, I have reason to wonder aloud if this lack of education applies to Dr. Kunchur as well.
Feel free to yell at me all you want on this, but I am pretty thoroughly pleased with the professionalism and cohesiveness of my responses so far on the matter. Unless you have anything more logically cohesive to show, I have nothing more to prove to anybody on the matter.
This is a somewhat reasonable objection to make (which I was tempted to respond to in my original reply). I again do not believe it is valid. Spacing the two events out in a single channel to an arbitrary initial time delay will still give you an arbitrarily high temporal resolution in a single channel. (By "arbitrarily initial time delay" I mean something like, I would imagine, 5-10ms to measure a time resolution of 5us on the basis of peak detection. But >1s would of course get you back into the ns range.) And like I mentioned earlier, if you assume your original signal consists of Dirac pulses, nothing stops you from deconvolving the 44khz signal to get your pulses back, at a time resolution well under 5us.
And like I also mentioned earlier, even when you're dealing with a single channel and real music etc, the fact that the lowpass/quantization operation involved in the A/D conversion process changes the peaks only matters insofar as the ultrasonic content is important. Humans do not listen to waveforms. Keep in mind that Dr. Kunchur's proposed method of action involves nonlinear mixing in the ear, which is a frequency-domain phenomenon - not a time domain phenomenon. In the grander scheme of things, his result, if/when applicable, serves directly as a vector to make ultrasonic differences audible - not to directly make small time delay differences audible. It is kind of interesting, actually, and uses existing accepted theory to potentially get ultrasonics to be demonstratably audible, but only among the most artificial test signals extant (at least regarding what has been tested so far). I can accept his results but still reject high res digital audio as being useless for the dissemination of commercial music, just like Meyer/Moran actually could detect audible differences between 16-bit and 24-bit, yet came to the same conclusion.
Using two channels for the measurement process allows one to ignore the sidelobes of the impulse response to influence the measurement of the time resolution. Whether or not this ignorance is acceptable is entirely a question of what you're trying to measure. The question jj and I are trying to answer is "when you delay a signal consisting of a single waveform, is 16/44 capable of encoding the difference to under 5us?". Our two-channel tests answer that in the affirmative.
Check back and all this has been covered before and answered, over and over. So why the continual attack on Dr. Kunchur and now me?. You guys also attacked Jneutron, from Fermilab and Brookhaven, as I recently posted. I also see you continue to refuse to post proof of your one channel claims.
I suggest you wait for Dr. Kunchur's reply, like a gentleman, instead of your continual attacks, including the string 'ask a question to Dr. Kunchur' which NCdrawal had to correct you on. Kinda shows your real motives doesn't it.
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...e=0&fpart=1
You claiming you have special knowledge that mainstream science, PHDs knows nothing about?.
Please be more accurate.
I addressed this. Once. It is so very trivial that perhaps you did not notice. For the answer, I suggest you read up on the "convolution theorem" that will help you understand the in-band spectrum of one vs. two spaced pulses. We're doing the basics of Fourier Analysis here, not anything esoteric or complicated.
As to "errors right away", you have proven nothing of the sort.
You complain about how Dr. K is treated, yet you, yourself, show 10,000 times the misconduct you accuse others of. The mathematics is clear. You have evidence before you. You refuse to examine it, and insist that the real, hard evidence does not matter, and repeatedly retreat to an appeal to authority, ignoring the authority already factually, testably, and provably present.
The mathematics is clear. Clear, end of sentence, end of discussion. Rather than rail on about "this expert" I suggest that you actually take the claims you have presented to someone who actually does mathematics of this sort. AFTER that, you might come back and apologize. It would be much more professional of you than these repeated, unwarranted professional attacks.
It's time you face reality. The quote you cited is wrong about the mathematics. If Dr. K meant them as you provided them, well, that's not entirely clear to me, yet. His quote about amplitude resolution not being related to time resolution, however, looks extremely cautionary in that regard, and if meant in the way it appears, is evidence suggesting a basic error.
So it goes. You're going to have to live with it.
IF, and only if, he's arguing about nonlinearities, then he may have something here, in that the nonlinearities introduce intermod that is audible. Why this happens in the ear at low levels is a good question, though.
In any case, I fail to see why there would be any argument about the time resolution of a PCM system, something that is really very well understood, and does not restrict time delay, either intra-channel or inter-channel, to at best one sample interval.
Of course your same old comments, posted over and over for over 35 pages, have been covered and resolved over and over from the beginning of this string. You offer no proof, just scandel ridden comments that Dr. Kunchur has had to correct.
This includes your famous page 2 comment that you claim no one has corrected. (""errors right away", you have proven nothing of the sort.) Yep, Dr. Kunchur corrected J_J.
It all boils down to Dr. Kunchur's PHD peers, Industrial seminars to PHDs, other university and institution PHD experts, 3 national organizations, at least a dozen anonymous referees all agree with Dr. Kunchur, before he could published his papers. And they agree with him not you.
Interesting you claim
And yet from page 2 to page 28, you used only examples of two channels with Xus of shift. On page 28 you suddenly claim one can do it in one channel. Interesting since you cannot and Dr. Kunchur easily demonstrates this, as well as the accurate graph I presented. The graph clearly demonstrates the distortion that is cause by short periods of time and high frequencies. Just remember, Dr. Kunchur's papers are mainstream science approved and third party, while your comments here are not approved. And what makes matters worse, you have a huge conflict of interest with manufacturers financially backing AES, of which you are a 'senior fellow', not just a member.
And you keep sidestepping posting your legal name to one of your posts. Yes there are ethical and legal reasons J_J refuses to post his legal name.
nothing to add other than..
getting a subscription to the AES library has been worth its weight in Gold. those guys, like audiophile types, care deeply about sound quality.. the whole reason it exists is to further the craft of engineering. Check the papers out...amazing, amazing stuff. I know many of the members.
You, sir, have moved from being deluded to being an outright liar. I responded to your original quote, which appears to refer to interchannel delay. When someone brought up the issue of resolving 1 or 2 pulses separately, I pointed out that was also easy.
Resolving the start time of 1 pulse is also possible, IF YOU HAVE A REFERENCE, and ONLY if you have a reference. Perhaps you just haven't thought about this enough. Now, what is the easiest reference to create? Do tell, why don't you, do tell us, what's the easiest reference? Hello? Earth to SAS.
I would suggest that as of right now, today, you fully retract your accusations of misconduct, apologize for making them, and never EVER make another such response.
As to the OP, I think we will await Dr. K's response forthcoming from the "DSP" guy.
Interesting. Thank you for actually admitting why the AES exists, as opposed to the all-out attacks on the AES (and IEEE by proxy) we see from other members. I presume you weren't being sarcastic.
I suggest the viewers start from the beginning of this string and read through carefully. You will find this very same argument (yet again) with answers, including an accurate graph, and a response from Dr. Kunchur (page 30) exposing J_J as one who does not understand digital very well. And Dr. Kunchur is backed up by mainstream universities, national organizations etc. while J_J is not.
It appears from the beginning of this string, and read his posts now, that J_J's only purpose is to discredit Dr. Kunchur and mainstream PHDs as much as possible. The fact that J_J continues to refuse to sign his own legal name to even one post demonstrates his lack of openness and integrity. We all have posted our legal names to at least one post, except J_J, Axon, and Xenophanes. Why not full disclosure J_J??
Here it is again.
Steve Sammet
How about it J_J??
Sorry, I draw the line at 38 pages.
I have one question:
Are you by any chance an IEEE member?
Just answer yes or no.
I've had it with your insults, your misrepresentations, and your false professional accusations.
I require, since you have made this claim, that first you cite the individuals, universities, national organizations, etc, that have explicitly given the work that you refer to explicit and formal approval. You have made this claim, you are now obligated to provide full and complete evidence.
Then, I require you to explain the nature of the second half of your claim, wherein as a matter of public record I have been awarded an IEEE Signal Processing Society Field Award, which you now represent as "not backed up by ...". Please explain this bizzare misstatemenht to my satisfaction. (You may simply click the appropriate link on my web site in order to determine the validity of that claim, or the issue of my IEEE and AES Fellowships, for that matter.)
The facts of the matter are simple, in the particular issue of digital signal processing, several professional societies have spoken specifically and directly, yet you claim exactly the opposite.
Please explain your failure to address the facts, sir.
As you can, and have, readily identified me, the claim quoted above is absolute fabrication.
You claim, further:
Where is Michigan J. Frog's "real name", then? Please cite this evidence, along with your own affidavit that you know that the given name is fact. For all I know, you're Steve S's worst, nastiest competitor, trying to make him look bad.
As an aside, after having been harrassed actively by several total nutballs from the audiophile side (note, that does not say all audiophiles are nutballs, only that several are, and that some have very much crossed the line), I can understand how anyone would prefer to keep their identity private. Threatening calls, repeated calls at 1am, being placed on various pornography mailing lists without my consent, having my email given to a variety of spammers, etc, are not amusing, and constitute a violation of several laws.
None the less, I haven't obscured my identity at all, it is clear, obvious, and plain exactly who I am, and so the dissembling regarding "real name" on your part is shown to be part of a false campaign of intentional and deliberate defamation.
Cease and desist.
I have one question:
Are you by any chance an IEEE member?
Just answer yes or no.
I have one question for you that's even simpler: what's your name?
You have been asked this question on this board countless times, and refused to answer it here directly. I don't think you're in any position to demand answers to personal questions of membership, until you have the decency, honesty and integrity to stop hiding behind a pseudonym, and state your full and real name.
I've had it with your insults, your misrepresentations, and your false professional accusations.
And I'm sure you're probably also not happy about having been proven scientifically illiterate, and losing this debate as dramatically as you did. I followed it closely, and the insults, misrepresentations and false professional accusations were yours. Strangely, you project much of what you do on to others, in some kind of faux indignation routine. You have many times here made false and unfounded accusations against members of posting under pseudonyms, and then attacked them for this based on your malicious, false and unsupported accusations. You even demanded that our forum change its rules to suit your desire that people post under their real names. Despite the self-contradicting fact that you have never posted under your real name, or even stated it. Yet despite your protests about other people's names, every time someone asks you to simply state your real name in full, you accuse them of "insults, misrepresenations and false professional accusations", and anything else you can think of.
Well you can't show evidence of ONE occasion here where you told us what your name was, in your own post, in your own words. All I ever saw was lackeys and lickspittles speaking on your behalf, whenever you were asked what your name was, to identify yourself. So until you can point to one post here in the over 3 HUNDRED you have made, where you clearly and directly stated your name and affiliation, don't accuse anyone of "misrepresentation and false professional accusations".
I find it ridiculous for someone who hides behind the pseudoname "j_j" and refuses to disclose his real name and affiliation in any of his posts, to be barking about "false professional accusations". It appears you will never have the honesty or integrity to disclose your identity in your own words, in your own posts. So I presume that to avoid the continued hypocrisy and embarassment you are facing by the evidence that clearly shows you are hiding behind the pseudonym to try to weasel away from taking any responsibility for what you write and say to people, this latest indignant rant about "I've had it with your insults....blah blah blah" means that you are going back to your Hydrogen Audio haven, to avoid having to take responsibility for your words. So much the better if that's what you're telling us. In which case, don't feel you have to announce it, with further theatrics. If you're going to go, go with dignity. You know?
Best regards,
Michigan.
SAS: The fact that J_J continues to refuse to sign his own legal name to even one post demonstrates his lack of openness and integrity.
As you can, and have, readily identified me, the claim quoted above is absolute fabrication.
Which is yet another "absolute fabrication" on your part. Show the post where you signed your own legal name to it. Or how about one where you simply stated your name to us? You won't, because it doesn't exist. That's a fact. All you do in response to this fact is bluster and oscillate wildly. Steve is right. You continue to demonstrate your lack of openness and integrity. Not to mention hypocrisy, since you accuse others of hiding behind pseudonyms. What are you trying to hide and run away from here? Responsibility for your words and deeds?
Where is Michigan J. Frog's "real name", then?
Hey wait a second, Chico. As this is like the 52nd time you've made this accusation, I'm going to have to insist: where is your evidence my name isn't "real"? Either show it, or retract your false professional accusation against me, and submit a grovelling, abject apology. And on failure to support your false accusation, I demand that you cease and desist from any further such false professional accusations!
Let's see you cite incontrovertible evidence, along with your own affidavit, that your pseudonymous trolling friends "Krabapple", "Axon", "Xenophanes" and "Arny-Arnold Kruger-Krueger-Krooger" are who they say they are. After that, I'll have a few more names for you.
For all I know, you're Steve S's worst, nastiest competitor, trying to make him look bad.
Yeah, for all we know, Mr. Pseudononymous "J_J" Troll, you're Dick Cheney in a tutu. I guess it doesn't bother YOU to make nasty "false professional accusations" as you just finished doing, does it? Like I said, you are guilty of everything you complain about. That's in case you're wondering why no one who's known you for more than 5 minutes takes you seriously.
As an aside, after having been harrassed actively by several total nutballs from the audiophile side
Could you be more specific, please? We're ALL nutballs. Remember? All of us are also your "stalkers" as we've learned, so you'll have to be more specific there as well.
I can understand how anyone would prefer to keep their identity private. Threatening calls, repeated calls at 1am, being placed on various pornography mailing lists without my consent,
Are you sure they're not without your consent? (eyebrow raised). I'm just saying. People don't usually get that unless they've already visited porn sites, and picked up trackers. In any case, you might want to clear your cache, to avoid "oopsy moments".
having my email given to a variety of spammers, etc, are not amusing, and constitute a violation of several laws.
LOL! Guess that spammers just don't have any "respect for the law", like they used to in the olden days, huh, grampa jj?
Every time I open a new email account and before I've even given it to anyone, I'm already getting SPAM. So I guess my ISP doesn't really care about the "several laws" it is violating. Another thing to complain about!
Funny as it is though, your rant is a pretty lame excuse if you're even suggesting any of it has anything to do with you not telling us your name. No one is asking for your email address, so I see through that. No one is asking for your phone number, so that's also another bogus diversion. And as far as I know, no one here has been forcing you to join pornography mailing lists without your consent. Steve has given you his name, so have I, so have many of your opponents here. You have no excuse whatsoever to hide behind a pseudonym like you do, and not state your name and professional affliliation, full and clear, like an honest, responsible professional. You will only be regarded as a nameless troll, until you do.
None the less, I haven't obscured my identity at all, it is clear, obvious, and plain exactly who I am
Nonsense. If so, then you would have simply given us your real name by now, and professional affliliation (since you keep claiming to have one!). Show me the post where you did. You won't, because it doesn't exist.
, and so the dissembling regarding "real name" on your part is shown to be part of a false campaign of intentional and deliberate defamation.
No. Your "false professional accusation" is what is shown to be part of a false campaign of intentional and deliberate defamation. Not just on me, but my entire Frog family. I will not stand for you insulting my family like this! I am sick and tired of your (insert gratuitous accusation here) and I will not take it any more!" (reg. tm.)
Stand and deliver! (no wait...)
....Cease and desist!
Cease and desist.
For nigh on 12 years, "j_j", aka "Woodinville", aka "curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" etc., wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Powell, unless you have some evidence that I am a
"phoney egomaniac want-a-be-audio engineer", cease and desist
in your efforts to injure my professional reputation."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sir, your continuous harrassment is clearly willful. I once again
suggest that you cease and desist utterly, apologize for your
cadly behavior, and cease deliberately making this newsgroup an
antogonistic place, lest you reap the fruits of your false assertions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you can't, cease and desist in this defamation. You have nothing to say about
audio. You have nothing to offer anyone who wants to better what they hear. ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'll say it once more, George, cease and desist. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must now cease and desist delivering standings to me. Now you're simply
making things up to suit yourself. You've gone off the deep end, ..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deliver the accusations you have repeatedly made IMMEDIATELY
to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours, if any.
STAND AND DELIVER!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously Mr. J. Troll.... do you think your phony indignation routine is ever going to work? All these years of you trolling audio groups demanding people "cease and desist" or "stand and deliver" or whatever other nonsense you can think to rave about... it's sad, really. Like I say, you can't do this sort of thing while hiding behind phony troll names and refusing to identify yourself in your posts with your real name, and expect people to not laugh in your face or take you for a senile old fool.
Like I said, you could just be some lunatic popping quarters into an internet access booth near the subway. Whoever you are under the fake names, if you even have a "professional reputation" to injure, dare I say it from all I've seen, you've done more to injure it here and on other groups, than any of these innumerable enemies you have acquired over the years.
So if you really wish to be taken seriously Mr. Jay J.Troll, try "ceasing and desisting" yourself, from making false professional accusations. That would be a start, to showing you're not a self-contradicting lunatic.
I must say, in all my years on the interwebs, I haven't seen a pair of entities as contemptible as Frog and SAS since my RAO days.
Their suspicions are baseless; jj is who and what he claims to be on his Homepage. His Homepage is linked from his Stereophile Forum profile; the information that Frog and SAS claim has not been provided, has in fact been available to anyone on this thread from jj's profile page. John Atkinson knows that information to be true, and Frog and SAS were told several pages ago how to find it.
So: Mr. Mejias, you are the moderator of this thread. I request that you ask your boss, Mr. Atkinson, to step up and counter the profoundly stupid, ugly, borderline lunatic accusations from Frog and SAS about jj's identity, with his own testimony. One sentence is all it would take.
As one will see below, Krabapple is a willing accomplice in some pretty nasty deceptions.
Here krabapple is once again stating J_J is James J Johnston using his home page link, which legally means nothing. Krabapple is all smoke and mirrors with his assertions. And the legalities have been mentioned to krabapple before, so krabapple is willingly misleading viewers to false assumptions. krabapple:
A. does not understand law pertaining to what is admissible as evidence and charges brought forth, let alone ethical issues
B. needs to provide proof, not hearsay, that J_J is in fact James J Johnston. J_J's homepage means absolutely nothing. It is not proof of any sort.
C. krabapple has been told the legalities more than once so krabapple continues to willingly misrepresent his comments as of value.
D. Why hasn't krab asked for full disclosure concerning J_J?. All forums I know of insist on full disclosure of their members if in business, organizations etc. In fact, J_J requested full names be disclosed on this forum, yet J_J continues to refuse such disclosure. An interesting paradox indeed.
Some quick situations concerning J_J and his (and his friends) credibility. Notice I requested information concerning who supports AES since J_J is a 'senior fellow'.
1)) Steve, page 28:
J-Js response, page 28:
First J_J calls it a 'blathering conspiracy theory'. So I ask again.
J_Js response, page 29:
Remember, J_J claims to be James J Johnston, a 'senior fellow' in AES now sidesteps listing AES sponsors, which obviously causes a conflict of interest.
On page 31 I post the following.
And I post the list of AES sponsors.
2)) Page 28, I posted:
J_Js response, page 28:
I did neither, I simply asked what other organizations he has presented information/papers and requested proof. He does not list them on his site. He could have simply listed them here, but instead insults me and lists nothing, as usual.
J_Js response, page 29:
Again J_J could have simply answered with a list and been done with it. Instead he attempts misdirection by asking me to research it. If anyone should know, J_J should, that assumes he is actually James J Johnston. But he dodges my question and insults me. Interesting indeed as he could have put a pie into my face, but couldn't.
Page 28 J_J states:
Yet that is the discussion. Dr. Kunchur's conclusion deals with one channel sampling rate, yet J_J tries to discredit Dr. Kunchur by slighly using two channels.
Read page 2, where J_J states this:
Sampling theory involves one channel. Yet J_J uses the term "system" instead of one channel in his post, while accusing Dr. Kunchur of not understanding basic sampling theory. Of course "system" includes two channels, which J_J uses from page 3 on. So again, while Dr. Kunchur references to one channel, J_J is craftily using two channels in order to discredit him. And J_Js friends, including Axon, Krabapple, Xenophanes, Ethan Winer, Arny Krueger never contested what J_J was doing.
Notice from page 3 on, J_J resorts to two channels, not one channel. In fact, here is his quote again, just for emphasis, from page 28:
So J_J uses two channels from page 3 to page 28 and beyond, while Dr. Kunchur is concerned with one channel. So J_J uses two channels to claim Dr. Kunchur doesn't understand basic digital sampling theory.
And J_J offers no proof of anything he presents no links, page numbers in books from mainstream sources so one can check. Just his say so, no peers from other universities, institutes, referees, that Dr. Kunchur mentions he used.
By the way, here is another slick post from J_J concerning "resolution", page 28.
Notice J_J again uses "system", two channels, not one channel as Dr. Kunchur is concerned with, but both channels to manipulate the conclusion. And of course there is a difference between what can be reproduced with two channels verses one channel. Again J_J uses conditions that Dr. Kunchur is not addressing in order to attack Dr. Kunchur's credibility.
Why have Krabapple and others not called J_J out? No wonder J_J refuses to post his real legal name to his own posts.
By the way, J_J has never answered my question as to if he has ever worked with ultra sonics.
Mathematically speaking, a "system" is a set of things used together.
PCM, a single channel of PCM, is a SYSTEM. It must consist at least of an anti-aliasing filter, sampler, quantizer, and anti-imaging filter. Obviously if you want to do anything with it, you have to do more.
(Semantically, for PCM you would also have to provide a code representing the quantized signal, but that does not, as long as the code is created properly, affect the system behavior.)
It seems to me that Sasaudio is actively looking for ways to deceive others about what I've said, claimed, and done. While perhaps Sasaudio is not actually aware of what the word "system" means, given his presumption of expertise, he is not entitled to that assumption a-priori.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
No, methinks he representeth an agenda.
But why is beyond me.
And me think you are a senior fellow of AES who is backed by companies. Is the company you work for a financial backer of AES J_J??
Pages