| 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
Don't forget Krueger. I included you with Arnold Krueger and Ethan Winer. You're welcome.
No, that is far too specific. It is misleading to suggest j-j somehow didn't attack Dr. Kunchur's research, papers, and credibility in general. But he justified his frivolous attacks on Dr. Kunchur's serious research, by continually adding he was only attacking what was "quoted" by Steve, so there are a lot of "as quoteds" by him. Which is actually even worse, because it means that j_j has never himself read Dr. Kunchur's papers (listed at the beginning of this thread), before arguing against any part of his work! No serious, self-respecting scientist with any integrity would attack another scientist's work without having even read it. This is akin to Christian fundamentalists attacking some movie on principle, because of some part of it that was described to them by another which they took offense at, before having even seen the movie. I am sorry but that does not give j_j any credibility whatsoever, in my book.
Now since you were far too specific, let's just see how far he took his attacks on Kunchur's research, papers and credibility in this thread:
"j_j" wrote:
But you did not state this at the time did you. Leaving out critical information so as to mislead the public are we, and attempting to cover yourself now. Show us where you stated this in those original posts on page 2. Please tell us that you were not criticizing Dr. Kunkur, which will cause him to lose credibility because of that criticism.
Attempting to cover yourself again.
Covering yourself again, after the fact. 22khz analog will not resolve 5us accurately and you and arny know it. And the graph I presented comparing typical players with a 3us input signal proves it.
Anyone think 16/44khz will reproduce music 100% faithfully?
And Dr. Kunkur is the one who wrote the paper, but you failed to invite him. Easy to criticize someone's work behind their back. Then you tried to get me to contact him.
So who quoted the author before you responded on page 2? Arny? Now it is page 20. I did not post before either arny or you, so not me. Again you did not invite Dr. Kunkur, so he is not here to participate and defend himself. In otherwards, you can claim anything you want and no response from Dr. Kunkur.
Keep playing games J_J so more and more of the public can see under your facade.
Hi Michigan,
If you noticed, arny and J_J posted their attacks, page 1 and 2, on Dr. Kunkur before I ever posted.
And Dr. Kunkur was not even invited by J_J to participate so we all could learn. Just a hachet job by arny and JJ right from the beginning.
This makes hydrogen audio forum and audio engineering society look kinda bad.
Waitaminnit...Axon, you thought Michael Jackass Frog et al. were *kidding* about jj?
REALLY?
I mean, seriously...*really*?
And I thought you were reading this place more often than I was. Do you just have a naturally rosy view of human nature or what? ;>
Can you now agree that my using 'braying ass' was appropriate (and acknowledge that I myself noted that it was returning an ad hominem for ad hominem), and perhaps agree that any hand-wringing over a TOS violation by *me* fails in the face of the calumny the SF regulars here spew against folks like jj? It's frankly astonishing to me that Atkinson himself didn't step in and put an end to that asinine line of argument. He knows who jj is.
As you note, if the 'tone' here veers towards the impolite, then it's up to moderators to decide that and control it. First step might be to muzzle the braying when it's *obvious* one of the posters is making an ass of itself.
Mother of mercy, you invincibly silly person, would you please at least consider whether that 'analog' pulse in that simulation could ever be recorded or played back "100% faithfully" by any analog system in the physical universe?? (or for that matter pass through the human auditory system "100% faithfully")
That benighted graph is simply a misleading marketing tactic, and has been exposed as such before. It's a cousin to the misleading 'square wave' demos.
There is no requirement to 'invite' him in order to examine the claims made in the paper, as the paper was offered for discussion not by him, but by someone HERE.
Are you seriously saying that a critique of published work offered for examination is *automatically invalid* unless the author is present in the discussion? That's simply absurd. The author's published work *is* a contribution to the discussion.
That said, I too am eager to see Dr. Kuncher's explanation of what, in the quoted text, appears to be a serious misapprehension of how digital audio is implemented in the real world.
And btw, my real name is Steven Sullivan, my Ph.D. and career are in biology, my hobby is audio, and why does that matter to you, exactly? I notice neither your nor Michael Jagoff Frog's 'real' names are displayed in *your* posts. Shall I use that as *another* reason to find them alternately disingenuous, pompous, and laughable?
Yes, I agree. Hmmm.... I wonder how we could find out. Well I have a cousin in Poughkeepsie who says she's can read minds...maybe if I call her up and... Wait. Hold the presses. I just had a crazy idea. Would it work if you actually _examined_ the papers you've been maliciously dismissing all of this time, that NCDRAWL linked in the very first post that started this debate, like the rest of us have done?? You see my dear friend "j_j", this is the reason I can only laugh when you make all these claims about being a "scientist". Arny and Ethan also pretend to be scientists, but I'm sorry to say, NO real trained scientist would ever get this far in a debate, without examining the papers of the study from the author he is attacking. None. As far as I can tell, you have neglected to examine the studies and are only willing to debate whatever short quotes anyone pulls from them so that you can later say you were wrong because this or that argument was misquote or taken out of context. Yes, I think we're finally making sense of this debate!
Oh, of course. (yawn). Or perhaps it's time for you to stop glibly accusing people of "lying" without offering proof. Whenever proof is required, all you ever seem to offer is indignation. Anyway, you've flippantly accused so many of us on this forum of "lying" and similarly ridiculous assertions, I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously. In the very next breath and following message you write, you also accused your primary opponent in this thread of "lying" to you. So it's noteworthy that you accused fully -all- of your opponents in this thread of "lying" to you. That is, "ALL", in case you missed that detail. Yes, I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not say, something pathological on your part. Nevertheless, I think Jan described your behaviour here rather aptly when he recently wrote to you "jj, don't tell someone else they are more interested in insults because other than arnie there is no one on this thread more willing to resort to insults and feigned indignation than you."
If you think I have nothing but defamatory and obviously false ad hominem attacks to offer, then don't respond to me. And certainly don't respond to offer me defamatory and obviously false ad hominem attacks while trying to make a case against me, as you have just done. Moreover, there are clearly no ad hominem attacks from me to you in my message. So you clearly don't know what an "ad hominem attack" is. Maybe you were told what it was by your friend Xeno, because I've proved he doesn't know what it is either. This, to give you an example, is an "ad hominem attack". It was written by you here recently in your debate with Steve:
J_J wrote: "Some self-education on your part, along with a massively improved attitude and the removal of the sequoia balanced on your shoulder, would go a long way toward helping you recover some of the horrible hit you've done to your credibility. "
And that's pretty much how you conduct yourself in all of your debates, as I have seen your debate opponents tell. What makes your complaint even more worthless, is the fact that "defamatory and ad hominem attacks" against me is all you are offering in your response to me. Particularly "telling", since the message you are maliciously responding to wasn't even addressed to you in the first place. But since you've already admitted that you have a personal vendetta against me, that you intend to harrass me and intentionally derail discussions, I guess I should not be surprised to see you doing just that. You know what else is "telling"? The several defamatory rants that you directed at Jan yesterday, filled to the brim with ad hominem attacks. Your diatribes were in response to moderate messages that like mine here, weren't even addressed to you. Furthermore, these hate-filled rants of yours were in response to Jan making sincere requests for actual information and discussion on sampling. Furthermore, in two of those diatribes, you exercised your intent to harass me by continuing to bait and defame me to another member, when I wasn't even part of your "discussion". And despite the fact that I fully refrained from posting here yesterday. By that I think we're pretty much entitled to conclude you are nothing more than an irrational troll who wishes to squelch actual information and discussion.
In yet another meaningless complaint, you accuse me of "derailing the discussion", in a post where you have done nothing but deliberately derail the discussion. It is also noteworthy that you also accused your primary opponent (Steve) in this thread of "derailing the discussion". In fact, you have at one point accused all of your opponents who were involved in this debate of "derailing the discussion". In fact, -you- "derailed the discussion" at two separate junctions, when you said you were no longer interested in continuing the debate, after were unable to support your contentions. So I don't understand your logic; if everyone having this debate with you is "derailing the discussion", then how is it possible that you have nevertheless managed to pump dozens of posts into this thread? And should I assume that you would be happier if all of your opponents left the thread, so you could debate the issue with yourself? Although it was really bizarre to witness, you seemed to be pretty happy debating yourself yesterday, in response to a quote you pulled from a discussion Jan was having with someone else. As I recall, I don't think you were doing too well in that debate either.
But go ahead, blame that on me as well. That's what I'm here for. 
LOL! Funny. Red Book will not resolve 5us accurately and you know it. You are trying to argue against that fact because it doesn't fit right with your "agenda" to say otherwise. So if you were even close to being "100% right" on the technical issues, you wouldn't contradict yourself so much, and you wouldn't be so evasive, when you are asked to answer questions that might prove you wrong. You don't even begin to know what you're talking about in fact, as you have not even read the studies that some of us have. So all you are doing in this thread is arguing on out-of-context 'quotes', so that if you are decidedly proven wrong on anything, you can later backtrack and say "Oh, well I could only go by what I was told".
I agree.
But I also recognize that the credibility of Hydrogen and the AES are restricted to limited circles, where the issue of sound quality (aka fidelity) is not important. Not to knock Hydrogen or the AES; they may have legitimate contributions to make, in their niche. But they are not to be considered authorities on any issue even peripherally related to the issue of sound quality in audio. Hence the reason they are rejected by much of the industry.
As I wrote to J_J and NC, I don't know of any real scientist who debunks another's work without having even read it. If you noticed, I wrote a compendium of jj's casual attacks on the serious work of Dr. Kunchur, so we can see exactly how far he went with his attacks in this thread. The attacks J_J and Arny made were initially based on quotes from Geoff Kait. Not you. I hope that clears it up.
Biology PhD? That is so cool! I am pretty sure R. Sheldrake is also a biology PhD, if memory serves; have you read any of his books by any chance? I'd be curious what you think of his theories, esp. the ones regarding behavior and learning in animals.
*rimshot*
waveform
Vinyl Playback (similar to the source, eh)
redbook waveform...sharp cutoff
DSD..notice the HF noise..eek!
Our specific fields don't overlap, so I know him by reputation only...which is of a fine mind that has gone way off track into the la-la land of quantum mysticism and private jargon. The sort of scientist whose work is more often respected by the public that doesn't know how to evaluate scientific claims, than by other scientists who do.
wow those spectra look very...misleading, ncdrawl. Where did you get them? What's it supposed to be a recording of? Why would you *expect* there to be anything above the Nyquist cutoff for a spectral view of Redbook, and of course if your y-axis extends up to 100Hz, it's going to look 'compressed' unless you expand the view vertically.
Never mind, I found it - it a marketing page from an 'audiophile' label, and about what you'd expect. That SACD, for example, would absolutely not have such a spectrum upon playback, and their use of the phrase 'the majority of information' is a pure cow patty. That spectral view for the LP is also quite incredible -- even leaving aside that spectral view will not show you distortion that could be apparent in a waveform view. And overall it looks like they have used color enhancement to boost the spectral contrast beyond anything normal. That's why the Redbook spectrum looks totally blown out up to 22 kHz. Shameful misrepresentation.
http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/arfi2_en.html
their justification for high SR is also dubious, echoing specious claims in this thread about 'time resolution'
http://www.acousence.de/Seiten/technology.html
Silly krab, sure, J_J and arny claim 16/44 can easily reproduce 5us pulse times. See page 2 and 1. Arny nor J_J have not specified anything that cannot be resolved. So what is the public to believe?
JJ page 2:
And I'm asking you describe what *ANALOG* technology records or plays back that Dirac spike with absolutely perfect fidelity -- which is was "100% faithful" means, right?
This would mean that there would be no measurable difference between signal in and signal out, using analog recording (tape) or playback (tape, LP) technology. You could also ponder what a microphone and loudspeaker would do to that pulse, in terms of maintaining fidelity.
This is a shameless lie in your part. No one named is 'denying' Dr. Kunkel such right, and your interpretation of my 'tone' or 'intentions' is your own embarrassing paranoid fantasy, as I specifically said I am *eager* to see his reponse.
Your continued joining of HA and AES to imply that one is an arm of the other or somehow 'in cahoots', is just further stupid paranoia. Do you know anything about either enterprise?
Slick reply Krab. However you are attempting to change the subject. Misleading again are we. The graph clearly demonstrates 16/44 is inferior. Don't try slyly changing the subject matter. Understand now?
And your side has intentionally not invited Dr. Kunkur to this string. Your side would never have invited him until pressured to do so. So please don't try sneaking around that fact. Look at your own statements.
Next, I see your side has conveniently left out Dr. Kunkur's
Colloquia and seminars:
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm
Colloquia and seminars:
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium at Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research, on December 23, 2008.
Temporal resolution and bandwidth of hearing, "Hearing and Donuts Seminar" given at University of Wisconsin at Madison, on April 11, 2008.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, seminar given at Argonne National Laboratory, on April 15, 2008.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at Northern Illinois University, on April 18, 2008.
Temporal resolution and bandwidth of hearing, presentation to the Bose Corporation in the USC Nanocenter, Jan. 23, 2008.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at University of Pune, Department of Physics, on January 5, 2007.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at University of South Carolina, Department of Physics and Astronomy, on February 15, 2007.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, on August 21, 2007.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at Instituto de Fisica, Universidad San Louis Potosi, San Louis Potosi, Mexico, on August 29, 2007.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, colloquium given at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on December 18, 2006.
High-fidelity audio and the resolution of time in human hearing, institute-wide ASET (Advances in Science, Engineering, and Technology) colloquium given at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) on December 22, 2006.
The perception and high-fidelity reproduction of music, seminar given at Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, March 22, 2005.
I don't think there are too many dummys there. In fact I bet alot of PHDs. How about that Krab?
And this list does not count questions and answers at conferences, referees, and whatever processes etc. How about that Krab? Where have you lectured pertaining to audio?
Observation Krab. And some here have not advanced confidence in AES. Observation of hydrogen audio over the years.
Have a good weekend Steve.
Steve
Oops forgot these.
Temporal Resolution and the High-Frequency Limit of Hearing, at the 31st Annual Midwinter Research Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), February 16-21, 2008, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
(M. N. Kunchur, Bulletin and Abstract Book of the 31st Annual Midwinter Research Meeting of the ARO, edited by Peter A. Santi, vol. 31, pg. 318, February 2008.)
Probing the temporal resolution and bandwidth of human hearing in "Session 2aPP: Psychological and Physiological Acoustics: Potpourri" at the 154th annual ASA meeting in New Orleans, November 28, 2007.
(2aPP1: M. N. Kunchur, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 122, No. 5, Pt. 2, pg. 2967 November 2007.)
Hi Steve,
I almost hate to post this, as it makes me look like yet another villain.
What you've posted is a list of articles by Dr. Kunchur about the ability of people to resolve small time differences. That's all great, and it does indeed look as if he's been able to show that people are able to resolve smaller time shifts than were previously thought possible. That's wonderful stuff, but it's not the entirety of the claims of the paper in question. His main conclusion, in addition to the ability of people to resolve time shifts of 5 us, is that a sample rate of 44.1 kHz does not allow the resolution of such time shifts, and therefore that a 44.1 kHz sample rate is insufficient.
This turns out to be inconsistent with well-established sampling theory. That's the issue here - not Dr. Kunchur's credentials or his integrity. It's the conflict of his delay-resolution claim with existing sampling theory.
In addition, it does not appear that he even realized this claim was in conflict with existing sampling theory. Other articles on his site make claims that strongly suggest that, frankly, he isn't well-versed in the existing sampling theory. If he were, he would have recognized the conflict and provided supporting evidence and/or analysis. I don't think he's going to be able to provide evidence that what we currently know about sampling systems vis-a-vis time delay resolution is wrong. This is because his descriptions of existing sampled systems show a lack of understanding of the existing theory. History has shown that those who overturn existing theories can only do so if they have a thorough understanding of them. That doesn't appear to be the case here.
Well, I guess this indicates the "Hydrogen Audio Forum" welcome wagon has arrived. Your second introduction into our discussion here, is even better than your first one. The one where you instantly addressed one of our members as a "braying ass", I believe. And of course, as soon as you return, you accuse Steve of "shameless lying". I thought that's J_J's line? Or is it that all you lunatic fringe objectivists from Hydrogen Audio call your opponents "liars" in a technical debate? Do they teach you to do this in the introductory course on Hydrogen, or do you have to get to one of the higher levels of indoctrination into the HA cult, before you learn that tactic?
But really, how silly of me to think that you boys from Hydrogen Audio are cross-forum bashing trolls who only come to Sterephile to crap all over our threads and create inter-forum flame wars on every topic of discussion going. I don't know what I was thinking. BTW "krabapple", it's "walk softly and carry a big stick". Not "stink". Your act might need a lil' tweak.
I agree. What size mouth are you?
....So let me see if I've got this straight. Today you claim to be a doctored biologist. And you're a doctored biologist who barges into the middle of a scientific discussion, ranting like a rabies victim and yelling out childish names like a retard. ie. "Michael Jagoff Frog", and "Michael Jackass Frog". Let me guess... you got your magic biology degree in a box of Fruit Loops? That's swell. You know if you send it in by February 21st, 2010, you can trade it for a pair of light-up sneakers. Well, I can't wait to see how your next threadcrapping foray on this forum turns out. Tip: If you see this message on your following return, please try again later. It only means we all went on summer vacation, and will be back shortly...
Although this debate is focused on Dr. Kunchur's articles about the significance of ultrasonic frequencies within the range of human hearing, readers should understand that there are many studies and reports that support this notion.
Which is bad news for some, because it appears that none of the Hydrogen Audio Forum Battle Bots who've invaded our forum have even studied Dr. Kunchur's articles, to begin with. Well, here are a few more articles for them to "debunk". Have at it, boys.
In addition to links, passages that I thought were interesting are also quoted below. As with Dr. Kuchner's study, any "debunking" requires reading the full report you are criticizing.
LIFE BEYOND 20 KHZ, "David E. Blackmer"
Many engineers have been trained to believe that human hearing receives no meaningful input from frequency components above 20 kHz. I have read many irate letters from such engineers who insist that information above 20 kHz is clearly useless, and any attempt to include such information in studio signals is deceptive, wasteful and foolish. They assert further that any right-minded audio engineer should know that 20 kHz has been acknowledged as an absolute limitation for decades. Those of us who are convinced that there is critically important audio information to at least 40 kHz are viewed as misguided.
.....
The human hearing system uses waveform and frequency to analyze signals. It is important to maintain accurate waveform up to the highest frequency region with accurate reproduction of details down to 5 ms to 10 ms. The accuracy of low-frequency details is equally important. We find many low-frequency sounds, such as drums, take on a remarkable strength and emotional impact when waveform is exactly reproduced. Please notice the exceptional drum sounds on The Dead Can Dance album Into the Labyrinth. The drum sound seems to have a very low fundamental, maybe about 20 Hz. We sampled the bitstream from this sound and found that the first positive waveform had twice the period of the subsequent 40 Hz waveform. Apparently, one half cycle of 20 Hz was enough to cause the entire sound to seem to have a 20 Hz fundamental.
http://www.earthworksaudio.com/tech/world_beyond_20khz.pdf
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/avinstall_life_beyond_khz/
Psychoacoustics
Limits of perception
The human ear can nominally hear sounds in the range 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (20 kHz). This upper limit tends to decrease with age, most adults being unable to hear above 16 kHz. The ear itself does not respond to frequencies below 20 Hz, but these can be perceived via the body's sense of touch. Some recent research has also demonstrated a hypersonic effect which is that although sounds above about 20 kHz cannot consciously be heard, evidence suggests that ultrasonic sounds can induce changes in EEG (electroencephalogram) readouts of listeners in controlled test environments. In addition, though we are unable to perceive sounds above 20 kHz, listeners in the same study gave qualitatively different judgments of sound when ultrasonic frequencies were present.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics
The Hypersonic Effect
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/3548
http://www.action-net.co.jp/ar/media/ActionRecord/paper-e.html
There's Life Above 20 Kilohertz!
A Survey of Musical Instrument Spectra to 102.4 KHz
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Been there, done that.
Wd've seen this strategy before, its called "Don't worry about reason and relevant facts, just repeat the same discredited bilge over and over again".
You're good at not listening Frog, but nobody with a brain is going to be fooled.
Arnold, are you hoping to win a prize for responding with "been there, done that" one million times? Because between you and "j_j" over there, you must be getting close to the one million mark. Guess what? Just to give you one example, we "been there, done that" with audio DBT's, which have been debunked decades ago - yet you and the rest of the Hydrogen boys are still trying to pretend they're valid for subjective evaluations. You don't get a prize for mentioning them a million times either.
You know, you're absolutely right. We have seen this "strategy" of yours before, of not worrying about reason and relevant facts, and just repeating the same discredited bilge over and over again. ie. That the old 16-bit, 44.1k sampling rate is just super fine and dandy for reproducing instruments with output that topples 100khz. Which of course also means SACD and even DVD-A was a huge waste of time and money, because Arnold Krueger, professional internet audio forum "scientismist", says they're overkill. Do please inform the proper representative bodies on that. You could save them a lot of money and time from pursuing these high resolution formats, because I'm sure the problem is they're just not aware of the "knowledge" you have to impart to them. (snicker)
Of course the "discredited bilge" you are referring to is the old 16/44k brickwall standard developed in the 1980's, when "portable computers" meant putting wheels on your regular computer, and carting them around like Samsonite luggage. So if you think that studies like Dr M.N. Kunchur's is "discredited bilge" based on these laughable, amateurish pokes you and j_j have been making at two-line quotes you've taken from one of his studies, like you say, "nobody with a brain is going to be fooled". In fact, it would be accurate to say you would have to not have a brain to declare the old 16/44 std. perfect sound forever. No one who cares about sound is fooled by that either.
You can't even hear the difference between two amplifers $50,000 dollars apart, and I'm not good at listening? Well Krueger, in your own prophetic words, I can't "create wisdom from foolishment". (snicker)
Sorry to be so late in this response - the pages have piled up quickly with what should easily be an answer to your question, jj. Frog and sas have both given their reasons for why they are here.
As to, "So why ARE you fighting, now?", the very fact you ask such a question should be its own answer. Why am I fighting? jj, take another look at what I actually posted to Axon, "The average audiophile only wants better music reproduction and not a fight over how to get there."
You chose to make this your fight.
So where in that sentence does it indicate I want a fight? I don't. And what I said was the average audiophile does not want conflict either. However, that you and your HA trolls have come here seeking a fight - or in arnie's words, "to come to see and to conquer" - indicates it is you and not the audiophiles who are wishing to both start and continue a battle.
Therefore, why do I "fight"? Well, why do I fight you, jj? and why do I fight all who are similar to you? I disagree with you, jj, and view you as nothing more than a Polonius figure in this little drama. You are a man of bluster and bluff who has risen to a position despite your lack of charm and while serving no one but yourself. Your words are more often than not only "good enough" and yet serve no real purpose. You are a victim of your own making. I see you as the character who in every Feydeau final act gets caught with his pants around his ankles. You are the butt of every gag devised by Moliere and the essence of all that Brecht found uninviting, unattractive and malevolent in its desire to control others.
So, you tell me, "P", why wouldn't I "fight" against that?
The other trolls are, for the most part, no better and only another character with which to build a conflict. Now at 20 pages and rising, only once has any one of the HA members mentioned music in this thread with any intent other than to use it as a measuring device not as music but as a "pulse". Pulses and filters and Fourier analysis have no more value to me than do squarewaves and rise time. I cannot tap my toe to a squarewave and every pulse on a scope leaves my pulse just the same as always.
You see that as something that makes me "pathetic" in your eyes and I see the fact you cannot discuss audio as music with emotional content as at least that for you. Nowhere in your defense of a "good enough" sampling rate have you mentioned how only being good enough affects the music. The clinical approach taken by the measurement crowd and the acceptance of what you know as all that need be known leaves me flat. You research what is "good enough" and I want something better than before. That you believe your lab can tell you all you need to know is beyond my comprehension. That "good enough" is what you argue makes me weary.
What you and those like you do not understand is audiophiles do not mistrust science and scientists. We only choose to ignore those who would do us harm. We choose to ignore those of you who prefer to use your own brand of science as a weapon. I have been in the company of numerous scientists and engineers who have impressed me with their desire to create a more faithful reproduction of the music that stirs both their soul and my own. I would no more choose to turn my back on their findings and their methods than I would on the most inspiring insructor I have encountered. The science trolls inspire nothing within me.
The one thing that separates the inspiring from the trolls is the music lover's desire for me to find my own way through their leadership. They do not preach, they do not insist and they do not insult. They do not settle for "good enough" and do not want me too either. They remain open to the possibility there is still more to learn and to know and they are willing to give that knowledge freely and without malice. They encourage me to be more inquisitve rather than insist I need to stop thinking because they can and have done so for me - and, according to the trolls, they have done a much better job than I ever could. When faced with new information the inspirational seek truth by understanding how new information comes about. They do not force new findings into old formulas.
I could go on but I would hope you can see where I am headed with this. The trolls are everything I do not care to be and all that I do not wish to be around. You are the trolls, jj, you and all those like you. Your concept of what is required to be an "audiophile" and my own ideas are so vastly different as to never see each other on common ground I'm afraid. I've not only encountered your type but I have on more than one occasion heard music reproduced through your sort of system - and it leaves me stone cold. I want no part of it and even though you deride any other sound as "euphonic distortions", and wish to deceive me with your "I am the one who knows what is best" routine that every one of you SOB's spouts, I'll take what I hear as better over what you prescribe as necessary. To paraphrasse, "Pathetic is as pathetic does", and I see your prescription as highly pathetic.
That requires no response. It is absurd on its face, "P".
The line is, "Et tu, Brute? then falls Caesar!". And it is about honor and how honor and duty are betrayed by human failings. Tell, me, jj, what would Polonius have done?
I say I don't want an analog vs digital debate and you provide one. And then insist analog has reached its limits and everything that ever was in a groove has already been extracted. And my experience says that is untrue. Your logic is digital requires no effort. You settle for what is good enough. LOL!
That means nothing to me.
Now, if you would care to be helpful, explain this to someone who read Pohlman's book 25 years ago and has had no need in the slightest for digital theory in the last decade.
If jj cannot, possibly someone else who prefers to be helpful can.
Axon?
Yeah, let's see that pulse after going through a record cutting lathe. With the result LP magnetized or not. Their choice.
(Or an open reel tape recorder for that matter.)
--Ethan
Stop lying about what I said.
Your own quote of what I said shows conclusively that you may have gotten it wrong once, but since you've been corrected repeatedly, now you're just lying.
I said, and continue to say, in line with very old mainstream mathematics from the early 1800's, that one can RESOLVE 5 microsecond timing in a 20kHz bandwidth.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, this does not mean, nor does it require, that one can transmit a 5 us pulse through this system, and have it remain a 5 us pulse.
You have been repeatedly advised of the difference between your false claim of what I've said (Arny will, I'm sure, speak for himself) and the actual statement that I've made, which is supported by several centuries of mathematics. Your insistance on continued prevarication suggests to me that you have nothing to add to the actual discussion, and that your intent is to derail technical discussion with ad-hominem attacks and attempts to create arguments.
Actually, he's right in line with expected (and older) results. This is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, and to that extent, it's good support data for other tests, AND extends the limits of sensitivity a bit farther. Interestingly, it extends the limits of human hearing to just about exactly what would be expected from basic calculations of known sensitivities of the cochlear filters and detection SNR's of the ear.
Based on THE QUOTES CITED HERE, that in fact is what appears to be the case.
But, you see, in this group, attacking someone's quoted work is interpreted to be attacking the individual, showing the ignorance of this group regarding scientific dialog, to say the least.
Unless the people quoting this work can come up with some context that suggests other than what you have observed above (which is no more and no less than what I've said, despite the lies of "sasaudio", who continues to repeat false claims about my position, time after time), there is little more to say.
This is why I keep saying 'based on the quotes'. Is there more? What "more" is there? Rather than hearing an answer to that, I see unwarranted personal attacks, lies like Frog seems to enjoy making, attacks on my personal appearance, threats of identity theft via stealing my web page content, and so on.
It is telling, and is classic of prejudice, to care more about someone is 'from' (even if inaccurately), than to care about facts and figures.
Do you have anything (that is, beyond your unjustified braying and dishonest posturing) to add to this discussion? If so, let's hear it. Re-citing the same work over and over again, without discussing the content of the work is not "discussion", rather it is an attempt at "proof by assertion", or perhaps "appeal to authority", depending on how you would prefer to spin it. As such, such "proof" is still subject to the basic findings of Fourier. So it goes.
Actually I did, you saw the word "resolution".
Specifically that would be the braying ass prosecuting the case that jj is some minor-leaguer or troll or secret agent of evil, with no authority to speak of in audio matters. Which is ludicrous, as John Atkinson could tell you.
Well, that would be because he, you know, lied, rather shamelessly in the face of the written evidence, in claiming that I or anyone is 'denying' Dr. Kunchur the right to respond here to critiques of quoted work of his.
If you were someone else it would be curious that you don't actually attempt to address context, or the specific reason why accusations are made.
But it's not curious, because you've shown youself over and over to be a pompous, disingenuous windbag who seems more enamoured of seeing his own endless verbiage in print, than addressing facts of the matter.
Well, you can dream, can't you? Fortunately for reason and science and plain human decency, you aren't a moderator here.
No problem Andy. I just listed those from his link. I do think that just presenting information at those premier venues is significant as if he was a quack and out of line, he would not have been invited to those venues in the first place. It should be interesting what he presents this week.
Thanks for your input Andy.
Gotta go.
Steve
No, I'm attempting to show that you are putting a burden on that misleading graph that it simply cannot support.
You're just indulging paranoid fantasy here.
Your side's few attempts to supports its case typically results in howlers like this listing Dr. Kunchur's various colloquium and symposium and convention presentations -- all apparently presenting the same research -- as if "SEE, LOOKA HOW MANY OF THESE!" was supposed to clinch the case. But actually, along with things like referring to a Ph.D. as a 'doctored biologist' it just shows how unfamiliar your side is with the ways of academic science.
Btw, I am NOT at all saying that Dr. Kunchur is a fraud or bad scientist, or that his work cited here is wrong (except that he does seem misinformed about implementing digital audio, based on quoted text); or that there's anything shady about seminars, colloquia, etc. It is perfectly normal and expected for scientists to present work-in-progress -- whether their work pans out or not -- at colloquia and symposia, as well as at conventions and meetings. It's also normal to be invited to speak about your published work.
But as actual scientists know, what gets your work accepted in your field, or not, is publication formally and extensively in peer-reviewed journals -- and how often those paper are cited. I'll spell it out for you: all the colloquia and symposia and meetings in the world on your CV won't get you the grant money, if you don't have the peer-reviewed papers -- or in the case of technology, the patents for and adoption of same -- to show as well. Needless to say, your work ALSO has to stand up to testing by other labs.
Now, Dr. Kunchur may well HAVE those bona fides -- I haven't looked to see if there's more than the three 2007-2008 publications listed in the paged linked from the first post (one of which is from meeting proceedings) -- but the case you tried to make for him here is just clueless.
You glanced upon an important issue, though -- we don't know what questions Dr. Kunchur got at his talks. We don't even know if he made his apparently misinformed claim about digital audio, in his talks.
And you know that at those events, one is allowed to ask questions, from high level PHDs etc. If they commented, disagreed that he was mistaken, don't you think he would have scrapped those papers, or at least revised them.
By the way, how do you know he hasn't been reviewed by peers etc. Is not that what we are waiting for. I guess poison the waters before you know the facts. That is really scientific isn't it Krab. We will see when he provides the
information.
By the way. You nor anyone else contacted Dr. Kunkur and asked for him to respond. That is a fact.
I am out the door.
You know, now that you mention it, I have to wonder at the number of presentations of this work that are at places like Argonne Labs, Oak Ridge and other atomic energy or physics places, where I would not expect much expertise on psychoacoustics or sampling theory and practice as it relates to digital home audio. As for why he didn't revise them for published papers, well, I suppose that would come down to whether he was ever challenged on them, exactly how claims were phrased in them, and who conducted peer review for his papers. Because for certain, the *quoted* text had the flaws that jj and Axon pointed out.
So I honestly have no idea how well-challenged he was, or by whom, given the list of presentation venues. It's odd to me that there's no AES listing other than guest lecturing to the 'Student Chapter' at CU. AES convention presentations have included reports about 'high resolution' audio and perception of same in the past. It would seem a natural venue for work like this...more so than a roomful of atomic physicists.
The only one I see here lying is you, with these strawmen, where you argue against your own deliberate distortion of the facts you were presented with. As I have suggested many times and as you have ignored many times, go and read the studies in question, before you make any further attempt to argue against them. All your fuming and ranting can not cover up for the fact that you are only illuminating your ignorance of these important studies in ultrasonics. You admit you have not even done any studies yourself on ultrasonics. Big surprise to me and everyone else, let me tell ya.
So by that, we can be sure you have certainly NOT done any studies anywhere near the calibre of Dr. Kunchur's. Even if in your wildest dreams someone thought you were mature, capable and responsible enough to embark upon this kind of study, you simply do not even have access to the highly specialized instrumentation used in his study. Thus, while I can't say what you are basing your wild speculative rants here on, I can say it isn't going to be comparable with Kunchur's careful, accurate work.
Clue #1:
This research found audibility of temporal alterations on a 5us time scale. On the one hand this confirms anecdotal claims in high-end audio that performance in the ultrasonic range is required to maintain fidelity in the audible range. On the other hand it also points to the need for higher bandwidths in apparatus used in psychoacoustic research for certain types of experiments, so that the thresholds measured are not affected by the limitations of the equipment.
....
An improvement in the present experiments over past experiments in the psychoacoustic literature is the use of specially designed ultrahigh fidelity equipment throughout the signal chain. An enormous time (of the order of two years) and effort were spent to develop the instrumentation and the methods for checking for artifacts. For example, for just the Fourier spectrum shown in Fig. 4, it took a few months to develop the instrumentation setup and to write the C code (FFT was not used). To measure one such spectrum takes over a week. Notice that the noise level is below 0 dB SPL. Without performing such tests, it will not be known exactly what frequency components arepresent and what their roles are in the discernment. To simply trust the instructions given to a signal synthesizer and expect that, that is what actually comes out is risky.
Clue #2:
All of your drama queen posturing, all of your cave man ranting, all of your silly accusations against your opponents of "lying, cheating, stealing and robbing", will still not reproduce harmonics above 22kHz in your outdated 1980's Red Book model. Sorry. Them's the facts. Deal with it. Accept it. I'll give you a few moments to grieve, if you need it.
Oh, you mean like you caring about whether I'm using a pseudonym or not, instead of talking about facts or figures? You mean like when you did that 55 times, Mr. Hypocrite? I find that "telling". And you want to talk "facts", do you? Well, here's one of them. You also just claimed that my stating your Hydrogen Audio Church member, "krabapple", is from Hydrogen, as "inaccurate". This fact makes you, once again, a proven "liar", (as you like to accuse people of):
Krabbaple User ID on Hydrogen Audio Forum:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showuser=10538
My posturing is honest posturing. Not dishonest posturing. And my braying is completely justified, I assure you. Would it be acceptable if I came on to your forum, Hydrogen Audio, and called your members things like a "braying ass", as a way of introducing myself into the middle of a technical discussion? And then proceeded to debate with even greater hostility than that? How about if I went to your forum, HA, and addressed you as "James Jackass Johnston Jimmy Crack Korn", or "Little Jimmy Jagoff Johnson n' Johnson", in a debate on digital sampling? Tell me already, would you simply shut up and be perfectly happy with that? I'm guessing not, since on every forum I have ever seen you invade, you scream blue bloody murder at the top of your lungs for everything from people not using lower case when spelling your "pseudoname", to failing to recognize and acknowledge that you are some sort of figure of royalty back on your home planet.
You wanna talk to me about "unjustified braying" and "dishonest posturing" do you? Okay, how about you stop glibly and casually accusing the members of this forum of being "liars" on every g-d second line you write? With your insane prima donna rants about how every one of your opponents are "liars", lying" about everything under the sun, you are completely desensitizing everyone to the grave accusation of "liar". Which I guess your parents never explained to you, is supposed to be a serious charge. You do not toss it around like a football, understand? My concern is that after you finally get tired of being skewered over your audio religion and leave this place (when you know you have no business being here), no one will take the accusation of "liar" seriously any more. Next up in the "unjustified braying" and "dishonest posturing" dept. is you accusing each and every one of your opponents in this thread of "derailing the discussion", every time you think it makes you look good to say that. The fact is, you have derailed the discussion plenty of times, and are "derailing the discussion" by complaining about "derailing the discussion", since it's always just a hyper-emotional rant that you are contributing, that serves no purpose but to derail the discussion. If you don't like some post or other someone added, but don't wish to derail the discussion you are supposedly so sternly focused on, you basically have two perfectly useful options: shut and up. Keep in mind that you have now accused everyone here debating you of "derailing the discussion". Which if you are not "lying", means you have no one to discuss anything with any longer. And if you're not lying, I guess that solves your problem.
You already did, so stop "lying", as you like to say. I posted an entire compendium of articles supporting the issue under discussion here. Which you ignored. Again you are trying to mislead the public by stating otherwise, and completely omitting my post. Same underhanded tricks as always, isn't it j_j?
So if we agree on this, then stop doing that already, and read the entire work you "claim" to be discussing. Instead, you have completely avoided addressing this after I noted it several times to you. All of your bluster and bluffing throughout this thread has amounted to absolutely nothing but "proof by assertion" and your usual appeals to authority, that you are infamous for. Adding up every bit of nonense you've said here, I wouldn't give you two cents for it. You clearly have no scientific training, except maybe in high school, because there has been nothing scientific or even professional about your behaviour in this thread. You have not even attempted to read the very papers you are purporting to "debunk". Dr. Kunchur is a real scientist, not a pretend scientist who trolls audio forums spouting pseudoscience. So I hope for your sake you will respect our forum if he comes here, and act respectfully, before this honored guest. In case you don't understand, that means don't throw your usual drama queen fits at him; ie. accuse him of being a "liar" or "derailing the discussion" or "lying about your credentials" (like as if anyone gives a F about the credentials of a pseudonymous troll...). And if this really needs to be stated to you, don't call him a "braying jackass". Finally, if and when he comes here to defend his work, I hope you will at least pretend to behave like a scientist, and give him the courtesy and respect of having read the damn thing. If you can't do that j_j, please keep your opinions to yourself.
"Our specific fields don't overlap, so I know him by reputation only...which is of a fine mind that has gone way off track into the la-la land of quantum mysticism and private jargon. The sort of scientist whose work is more often respected by the public that doesn't know how to evaluate scientific claims, than by other scientists who do."
Quantum mysticism and private jargon? Hmmmm, one imagines that reputation also belongs to Roger Penrose and David Bohm, not to mention Erwin Schrodinger. Matter is waves??!! Balderdash!! And what of Heisenberg's fancy-shmancy matrix mathematics??! The history of science is nothing if not a series of swirling controversies, one irrefutable belief after another toppled over by new upstarts. And lots of sqawking by the establishment at every turn.
Right now we are faced with one cosmological model that only explains how things are if the vast majority of matter and energy is undetectable, ie, does not conform to our existing (and successful) physical Laws, and another that says, no, you don't need to postulate the existence of this dark matter/dark energy if you accept that the constant in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation - the ultimate in "proved" scientific Laws - is not actually constant but has a distance-related dependency.
Conservative scientists appear to have difficulty with both of these hypotheses, but it is inescapable that one or the other must be correct and that existing physics is incorrect in that its predictions don't explain what is observed.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
If you take the time and energy that they all put into fighting and "conquering" as Krueger puts it, people who want "better than before", hell, I'm sure we could have already come up with a new sampling standard that gives audiophiles everything that music can convey. Never mind this thread, some of these guys who came here to fight you have been fighting people like us for just about 30 years! I'm not kidding, 30 years!! against the notion of "better than before". And it all started with a Pandora's box.That's 30 years of pi**ing in the wind. Nearly 30 years of trying to disrupt discussions of progress in the audio community. 30 years of arguing against and rejecting outright every argument that says they might be wrong, and how they might be wrong. 30 years that could have been spent in the service of improving sound quality (if any of them could actually engineer a SOTA product).
This is what happens when you get a group of sad, bitter and angry people who turn "science" into "scientology", and music into "data".
I concur wholeheartedly. Well said, Jan. We choose to ignore those who would do us harm, and so we choose to ignore internet cultists who claim to be the ultimate "Keepers of Audio Truth" (reg. tm.). I can name any number of real scientists and audio engineers that inspire me. I do not confuse a single one of them with this odd cult of ignorant audio pseudoscientist preachers and evangelists (part of which are headquartered in the Hydrogen Audio Temple). That all make an obnoxious and raucous sound wherever they troll and slither. That speak only from dogma and doctrine, and remain completely closed to the possibility that there is actually something they don't know about audio or science. They have only ever managed to inspire scorn and contempt among audiophiles, at best, and given enough time in the presence of these purposely disruptive anti-audio trolls, only encourage audio group forumers to want to cut off their internet connections or have them imprisoned.
More than absurd, it's just stupid beyond belief to try to resort to that in a debate. Particularly if you are only pretending to be a scientist, and can't or won't identify yourself to the person you are using this sorry tactic against. It is also a classic logical fallacy, known as "appeal to authority". Besides being a fallacy, it is considered poor form (aka "low class") at best, and totally self-demeaning at worst. "Dr. J" has never gotten the memo on that, unfortunately.
Again, you keep accusing people of lies, but you're the one making false statements here. You complain once again that "rather than hearing an answer to "is there more", all you get is (blah blah blah). Yet every time I keep mentioning to you that there IS more than what you have been quoted, there are the entire series of articles you have not even read, you suddenly develop alzheimer's or something, and ignore that fact. Further to that, I listed a compendium of additional articles that support the first series of 5 articles that there is "life after 22khz", and you're STILL pretending that there's nothing more to this than what 'the people quoting this work can come up with'. Like I said, stop pretending to be a scientist. Because if you were anything close to that, you would have already read the articles you think you are refuting, instead of telling us you have to be a mind reader to know what the author of those articles intends, based on the quotes various people pulled. You are only trying to refute those quotes because it makes your job easier, unable as you are to refute the entire studies. Except with your usual sweeping dismissals of "been there done that".
Everyone can dream. I would think that if you were a biologist as you (snicker) said you were, you'd know that. More than that, I can also predict a few things too. Call it a "hunch", okay? Or call it a "premonition". No, maybe it's a "feeling", or an "inkling". Well, whatever you wish to call it, you should know that it's based on what our moderator wrote in this thread just before you brought your bad trolling self here with your "braying ass" message:
How can I offer something valuable to this situation? How can I be helpful or interesting or entertaining, while still being considerate? If you don't have a good answer to those questions, then don't contribute. If you dislike someone so much that you can't act in a mature, adult manner with that person, then don't interact with that person. Keep your nastiness to yourself, vent your frustrations in some other way -- try listening to music, or something.
Spitting in the face of our rules, this is how you immediately responded to that call for this "human decency" you speak of to me today:
I notice neither your nor Michael Jagoff Frog's 'real' names are displayed in *your* posts. Shall I use that as *another* reason to find them alternately disingenuous, pompous, and laughable?
In your very first post in this thread, you wrote (to Steve) "you are making a *complete fool of yourself*". In your very next post to Jan, you wrote "News flash, you braying ass" (which you later lied and said you had addressed to me - so I guess that means you intended to insult 2 members with the same line, but only remembered to use it against one). You came back two days later to submit your next "contribution", where in a post to Axon in a mass-insult of forum members, you referred to me as "Michael Jackass Frog et al.". Immediately following that post, you are seen rudely screaming this at the top of your lungs at the primary debater in this thread (steve), who has not made any provocation whatsoever to you: "Mother of mercy, you invincibly silly person, would you please at least consider whether that 'analog' pulse...". Have you calmed down by the next day? Let's see. Nope. Not bloody likely. Here you are seen screaming and ranting once again, in a debate with the primary debater in the thread, accusing him of lying - no, wait, "shameless lying" (a personal abuse that I noticed all of you Hydrogen boys like to engage in, as often as humanly possible).
Long story short, every single "contribution" I've seen you make to this discussion has either included a string of profanities, personal insults, name calling, glib accusations of lying etc., random unwarranted ad hominem attacks, indirect attacks upon other members, or raving hostilities against your opponent, during what you pretend is a "debate". Along with other forms of personal abuse upon the members of the forum. Then when criticized for your hostile attitude, you write "your interpretation of my 'tone' or 'intentions' is your own embarrassing paranoid fantasy".
So this is your idea of "reason, science and human decency", "krabapple"? So this foaming-at-the-mouth rant is your idea of debate I suppose? Very telling. Now after you were finished yelling at and insulting the primary debater in this thread, who unlike you is actually not a belligerent x-forum troll but a very decent, honest guy with a very decent reputation, you started name-calling, insulting and making deliberately false accusations about me. Even though I also had not exchanged any word with you here, and even though you were supposed to be in a debate with SAS.
That's hilarious. You just listed three things you have proven you don't have the first clue about. It's fortunate yes, fortunate for you that I'm not a mod. Because if I were, "krabapple", and I saw that you came on my forum from a rival forum who's entire membership was hostile to the membership of my forum, and that you came here with the clear intent to disrupt discussions on our entire forum (even creating sister threads on your home forum to report your bashing here), and behave abusively toward its members, with such hostilities as you displayed when you entered this thread (as described above), I would have thrown you out so hard, your ass would hit the parking lot before it ever hit the floor. And then it would hit the other side of the street, because I don't even want the likes of you smelling up my parking lot.
And you know as well as I do, that if I went to your precious Hydrogen Audio forum and crapped all over it as you have been doing here, being deliberately disruptive and abusive toward its members as you are doing here, I'd be the one receiving the above message before I had even finished my second hostile post. I know you're only being as abusive as you want to be on our forum because you don't care if you get banned, since like your buddies from Hydrogen, you have no respect for this forum. So I guess all I can do to show my hospitality is just tell you to enjoy your disrupting forum bashing forays here, and please, feel free to be as abusive, insulting and intrusive as you want to be against any or all of our members and discussion threads.
Nice Krab. Interesting how you subtly deceive and mislead by failing to mention that these PHDs are just as versed or more so in mathematics, to check Dr. Kunkur's work. And they have no conflict of interest since they are third parties.
Besides that, you failed to mention these organizations:
"Temporal Resolution and the High-Frequency Limit of Hearing, at the 31st Annual Midwinter Research Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology (ARO) , February 16-21, 2008, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
(M. N. Kunchur, Bulletin and Abstract Book of the 31st Annual Midwinter Research Meeting of the ARO, edited by Peter A. Santi, vol. 31, pg. 318, February 2008.)
Probing the temporal resolution and bandwidth of human hearing in "Session 2aPP: Psychological and Physiological Acoustics: Potpourri" at the 154th annual ASA meeting in New Orleans, November 28, 2007.
(2aPP1: M. N. Kunchur, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 122, No. 5, Pt. 2, pg. 2967 November 2007.)"
Really, see my next post.
The fact is you, arny, J_J have yet to contact Dr. Kunkur to this day. So you obviously have not sought him out, so obviously did not want him to post.
And of course AES is backed by industry/companies, so its members, any fellows, etc have a conflict of interest.
So why don't you wait till Dr. Kunkur responds with his peer info etc before assassinating him. Your actions tell a very different story from what you want us to believe.
Take care.
j_J from page 2.
That is interesting. A 20khz (50us time width and no shorter) bandwidth will not accurately resolve a 200khz signal (5us time width). The pyramix picture is accurate science and clearly demonstrates at 3us. Seems these guys believe in magic.
Once agian, you confuse reproducing the pulse with resolving the start time and position.
The original context, once again, the context that you have willfully and dishonestly removed, was interaural time delay.
Your insistance on misrepresentation speaks very loudly for your intent.
You know the difference by now.
If you weren't just trying to argue, you'd generate two of those pulses in two different channels, one delayed by 5 microseconds to the other, put them both through identical systems, and present the outputs.
Then you'd have just what Arny did a day or so ago, proof that you're full of it.
You do realize, don't you, that REAL advances in audio would mean you have to sell a whole lot more amps and speakers, yes?
Hello? Wouldn't that be good for business now?
Says someone too chicken to attach their name to their defamation, that tricky rapscallion Michigan J. Frog...
You, sir, are a liar, plain and simple. You have previously admitted that your intent is to harrass, and your repitition of lies is nothing but more of that harrassment.
Do you have anything to add to this discussion?
Surely doesn't seem like it.
Well, John, since you know I'm hardly the "conservative", let me point one thing out...
The quote GIVEN HERE, without further text and support, appears to be a direct inference that is based on a bad understanding of sampling theory.
It's that simple. Rather than digging deeper, the people who posted the original quote and wish to support it simply resort to vilification and deliberate misrepresentation.
If they would bother to actually examine what the original quote claimed, and what that implies about sampling theory, well, how to put this? Your cellphone wouldn't work, neither would a broadcast HDTV, etc. Most of the modems that go beyond the very primitive would stop working (specifically those who do more than 1 bit per Hz), voice and audio codecs would not work, and if we extend the argument to bandwidth alone, and not sampling, your ears would not be able to resolve 5 to 10 microsecond interaural delay.
But your phone works, your TV works, and you CAN localize sound via time domain cues.
It really is that simple.
Crocodile tears over being insulted, and moaning about posts that are supposedly 'unacceptable' here -- well, that's just rich, coming from a consistently nasty piece of work like you, in a place like this. Looks like you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Maybe you should go to HA if you're so outraged at being the subject, rather than the slinger, of insults. There, the TOS and moderators *will* tend to keep the discourse more civil. Thing is, I doubt you'd last a month anyway.
The math may be fine, but that wouldn't make his claims about digital audio *as it is implemented* necessarily correct. The flaw in the quoted text was pointed out; the text was not a mathematical equation, it was a statement about the performance of digital audio technology: applied sampling theory; do you have a rebuttal to the critique?
And I didn't say he ONLY presented to physicists. I noted an odd preponderance of such presentations.
Wow, your grasp of logic is....amazing.
Wow, your paranoia is....startling.
Btw, does that mean Stereophile is rife with conflict of interest and not to be trusted too?
Just another indication of how little experience you have of real science, if you think what I've written amounts to 'assassination'.
And as I said before, if someone gets a rebuttal from Dr. Kunchur to present here, I'm all eyes.
Your own (re)actions have been rather *bizarre* throughout all of this. I wouldn't worry about mine.
weren't you 'out the door'?
I think one may entertain the notion that he simply doesn't *comprehend* what he's been told...and has no interest in doing so, because he's afraid to find he's wrong. <image of child with fingers in ears yelling LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU>
I asked Dr. Kuncher via email and voicemail to join this discussion.. but the likelihood of it happening....00009 percent. Probably won't come near it..what self-respecting PhD would? Thanks, you fucking children...another thread ruined.
Damn.
Pages