Quote:

Quote:
"There is no phase shift, so it is called a "Linear Phase" filter. What Linear Phase really means is that the phase shift is a straight line (linear) where all frequencies are delayed the same amount such that the waveshape or transient response is preserved.

You're right it's not simple, but that's also a bit off.

If the phase shift of a system is equal to 2 pi f t, then it's a constant delay system.

The phase shift increases linearly, i.e. it's a straight line with the origin at zero that increases with frequency with a slope of 2 pi t

And constant delay is sometimes good, sometimes not, just like most anything else.

Good input j_j so you have added some detail that I left for the reader to figure out - good for you.

I am fully aware that filter design is a tradeoff, thanks.
Seems that these papers should be clear about the differing requirements for anti-aliasing versus reconstruction filters.

Anything more constructive to add?

Anyone know of good (A/B or A/B/X) perceptual studies concerning these filters?

Quote:
What the hell is the matter with you idiots . Any layman knows that phase shifts are "waves". No shift and you have zero phase. What's this crap about linear phase filtering? Why would you want to filter something valued at zero?

What is that saying about open your mouth and prove .... your ignorance? Or was that sarcasm?

Quote:
Of course it was sarcasm. But suppose everybody felt like you do? Then you would certainly be a damn fool to feel any other way, now wouldn't you?

Does a tree makes a noise when it falls in the forest. What you copied in red is all the writer is trying to convey to the reader? Knock off trying to be Einstein. You are the one showing your ignorance and lack of anything to do by reading crap and making a big deal out of it.

Most of the time I ignore these threads that end up being 50+ pages of pissing contests by nerds. I just thought I would nip this one in the bud before it gets started or least throw a linear phase at it......What?

-- Theory of a Deadman

Some of us are interested in the true facts, or should I say have studied and know/understand the facts, so that we can understand what really makes a difference and how to design better systems.
I know several intellectuals that are highly irritated by pseudo-science BS put out in this way as fact and I have deep respect for them.
One was Professor Wadesworth who I studied under and who taught audio engineering at WPI. Another is a close friend.
I simply don't like to see incorrect BS sold as scientific fact. I have nothing against the author personally.

Why don't you just stay out of the thread rather than contribute nothing but insults and your opinion.

It would be amusing to find all the blatant errors in that paper and list them here.

Quote:
Ok Lamont. You are momentarily redeemed.

pete: Easy on Mr. Hansen. Terminology does not mean brains, skill, or intellectual capacity for delivery of invention.

It merely means terminology. Please don't confuse the two.

Charles is a damn smart guy.

It my also be diversion. Works as well as anything else. A smart man never gives up his secrets, even when he's telling you what they are.

Remember, by standards of the scientific system in place at the time and the system in place today..Micheal Faraday was a total illiterate. Yet we base much of what we know about electricity on what he brought to the table.

This is your opinion, fine but I have a right to mine also and I disagree with you. I suggest that you stay out of the thread unless you have something of value to contribute.