Quote:
troublemakers...stay out of this thread. (JAN, et al) that is,

Screw off, ncdrawl. You cause more trouble than anyone with this constant BS. If you don't care for me, forget me. But stop with always naming me as a source for your problems. I've avoided you for just this reason but you can't let anything die, can you? And then you come asking me to explain something to you. I'm not anywhere near you and still you have to insult me. What a f'ing jerk!

You don't want childish and insulting, then stop being childish and insulting yourself. Try growing up.

I really don't think I care to ask a question when you claim to have "been appointed" to relay them to the Dr. I don't trust you, ncdrawl. Not even in this.

Quote:
... please do not screw it up.

But you did with your shithead approach. Thanks alot, ncdrawl.

Oh, yeah, you have nothing whatsoever in common with J. Cash and it's an insult for you to use his photo.

OK, here are a few....

In "Probing the temporal resolution and bandwidth of human hearing":

* Dr. Kunchur suggests nonlinear mixing in the ear as a mechanism for sensitivity to differences in ultrasonic response. The analysis behind this is on page 9, but the bx^2 nonlinear contribution of the ear is not actually specified anywhere, and the equations for the filtering due to the external/middle ear are for 7khz and 21khz components, yet they are used as if the 21khz component was actually at 14khz. I can't really make heads or tails of this, but I don't have a psychoacoustics text on me to crunch the numbers myself, so I can't really validate the analysis. But the math isn't really adding up here.

* If nonlinear mixing is to blame here, assuming an extended transducer frequency response, shouldn't increased distortion in other respects (harmonic distortion, phase distortion) result in increased mixing, thus resulting in a greater audibility of ultrasonic differences? Is it plausible that transducers with minimal distortion could yield lower levels of ultrasonic audibility than transducers with higher amounts of distortion?

* Dr. Kunchur describes a novel power spectrum measurement algorithm written in C without the use of an FFT, but does not go into any more detail. What is the nature of this algorithm? What windowing methods are used? Was power for each frequency component measured as a signal peak or as a sum of powers in a band around each frequency component? Without knowledge of the algorithm (especially given the mistakes outlined below) it is entirely within reason to question its correctness.

* The square wave signal source was cited as having a jitter of 68ns. How was this measured?

* While Dr. Kunchur maligns digital audio as having excessive amounts of jitter, how is his analog source held as superior when low-cost digital interfaces appear to have over an order of magnitude less jitter (example: E-MU 0404 USB, <500ps RMS jitter quoted, $200)?

* What is the value of the jitter when the filter capacitor is added to the signal chain? If digital audio interfaces really do have unacceptable amounts of jitter, could not the excessive jitter in the square wave generator be load-dependent in nature, and could change when the capacitor is added - thus causing an audible difference between signal states that may not show up on harmonic power spectra?

* Dr. Kunchur claims that "digital synthesis ... can produce exactly periodic signals for only a small
subset of frequencies". There are obvious and measured counterexamples to this with oscilloscopes measuring commodity PC audio hardware; see for example here, where a 14khz tone is reproduced at a 44khz sampling rate without difficulty - a feat which Dr. Kunchur implies is impossible. How can he justify his statement given this counterexample, which he has the means to reproduce?

* Dr. Kunchur uses a screenshot from Sound Forge described as an 1850hz square wave at a 8000hz sampling rate. In fact, it is plainly obvious that this is not a square wave, and never really was a square wave, as oversampling or frequency synthesis was not employed to generate the frequency components correct in the first place. (See for example here for a discussion on how to correctly generate square waves and other nonbandlimited signals.)

Are not all of the issues Dr. Kunchur cites in his figure, in fact, the result of an incorrectly generated waveform? (That is also naively plotted with linear interpolation as opposed to bandlimited interpolation?)

* Dr. Kunchur also ascribes starcase distortion, inductive spikes, etc as fundamental issues of DACs - a blatant falsehood that is demonstratably false in perhaps half a dozen different ways, including: such converters would have a major (3db or more) and ragged frequency response drop approaching fs/2, which is not measured and simply does not exist in converters designed for digital audio use; such converters exhibiting staircase distortion would have extremely high ultrasonic output content which also demonstratably does not exist; the demonstrated accurate reproduction of a 14khz tone at a 44khz sampling rate (linked above) would be impossible with such staircasing; the antialiasing filter in a DAC specifically rejects staircase distortion; the use of oversampling (almost universal in DACs today) reduces such distortion to levels even Dr. Kunchur would agree are negligible (-140db or more). All of this is covered eg here. Are not all of these objections true, disproving Dr. Kunchur's statement?

* Dr. Kunchur mentions that when using a 100Mhz digital synthesizer to generate a triangular waveform, "the problems resulting from staircasing could not be sufficiently tamed". Is Dr. Kunchur aware of the lack of antialiasing filters and oversampling in digital signal generators, and in digital converters for scientific use in general? Could his objections simply apply to the use of scientific converters for audio reproduction - a use they were never designed for and are provably unsuitable for?

In his response..

* Dr. Kunchur states "I don't know who made up this nonsense of dividing the sampling period by the vertical bits to obtain a temporal resolution." I have demonstratably disproved this by upsampling a PCM pulse, shifting it, downsampling it, upsampling it back again and comparing the peak locations (the difference between them being the estimator of time resolution). For resampling processes of sufficient internal accuracy, does this not yield an estimate of time resolution not greater than 100ns for 16-bit 44khz digital audio? Does this estimate not decrease as sampling rate or bit depth increase? How is this measurement an invalid estimator of time resolution?

Yeah, I self-edited some riper words out. But really, I think "naive" is the right word there, even at a technical and non-insulting level. How to make a square wave seems incredibly obvious, and even professional software packages (like Sound Forge!) get it wrong. Even I get that stuff wrong every once in a while and synthesize a waveform that I don't realize is aliasing horribly. There's even a Wikipedia plot that's largely incorrect because of aliasing that I need to edit one of these days...

Question 1). Is the quote where you are alleged to say that the number of levels in a PCM signal has no effect on the time resolution of that system (of course inside the Nyquist bandwidth), actually an accurate quote of your words.

If so, 2) How, then, do you account for the fact that modulation methods that encode phase easily can provide more than 1 bit/sample.

If so, 3) How do you account for the fact that your statement controverts the Shannon Channel Capacity Bound?

If not, 4) Then why is it impossible to resolve 5 microsecond onsets in a pulse of any appreciable width in a 20kHz bandwidth linear system with noise about 90+ dB down from the peak level>

Any update on this?

Thanks for the update.

Hi,
I hope it's not too late for another question.
Dr. Kunchur replied on this forum: "Similarly, if you have two sharp peaks of sound pressure separated by less than the sampling period, the two will become blurred together: the temporal density of digital samples is then simply not enough to represent the two peaks distinctly and nothing you do with the bits can change this."
Q: Is this blurring effect caused by the sampling process or merely a consequence of bandwidth limiting that could also occur in other (analog) components like microphones ?
This would be interesting since very few of my recording engineer colleagues who are in favor of hi-res formats use special microphones.

Thanks for posting this. I've been too busy to follow this forum closely in the last several months, but this particular topic is very interesting. Your efforts to get a healthy exchange going are much appreciated.

Here are my questions:

Dr. Kunchur, when do you plan to take your first-ever course in digital signal processing? And once you do that, when do you plan to publish a retraction of your blatantly false claims about the resolution of sub-sample delays in discrete-time systems? Not that I am holding my breath.

Um, any word here?

Quote:
Here are my questions:

Dr. Kunchur, when do you plan to take your first-ever course in digital signal processing? And once you do that, when do you plan to publish a retraction of your blatantly false claims about the resolution of sub-sample delays in discrete-time systems? Not that I am holding my breath.

LOL, sorry this is too good! Sorry ncdrawl ...

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Here are my questions:

Dr. Kunchur, when do you plan to take your first-ever course in digital signal processing? And once you do that, when do you plan to publish a retraction of your blatantly false claims about the resolution of sub-sample delays in discrete-time systems? Not that I am holding my breath.

LOL, sorry this is too good! Sorry ncdrawl ...

it is rather funny, I admit.

a nobody throwing shit at a somebody.

Oh, harsh reaction! The s-word!
Is Bernie Hutchins a somebody to you?
The reality is that being a "somebody" doesn't matter, what matters is if the person knows the material. See the free link here, and there might be some tutorials that will help. Sorry I don't remember for sure it was too long ago when I read most of them:
See the link to "Free Materials" note that this is not just about electronic music, there is information on sampled systems, and digital filters. Very in depth, Bernie was an instructor at the graduate level and he is brilliant at explaining complex topics:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/

Also, Rabiner and Gold and Oppenheim and Schafer
are fairly standard texts in digital signal processing.

This is advanced material and you need a real understanding
to discuss it.

And by the way, Bernie is a true gentleman who could not give a damn about being a "somebody" to people like you so please no cheap shots. He is legendary at the University where he was an instructor, for the fact that he could actually teach, LOL!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Here are my questions:

Dr. Kunchur, when do you plan to take your first-ever course in digital signal processing? And once you do that, when do you plan to publish a retraction of your blatantly false claims about the resolution of sub-sample delays in discrete-time systems? Not that I am holding my breath.

LOL, sorry this is too good! Sorry ncdrawl ...

it is rather funny, I admit.

a nobody throwing shit at a somebody.

So tell me ncdrawl, do you know who Matti Otala and Dr. Marshall Leach are? I'm sure you'll google it, and let me give you a hint, TIM. Do you worship Otala also?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Here are my questions:

Dr. Kunchur, when do you plan to take your first-ever course in digital signal processing? And once you do that, when do you plan to publish a retraction of your blatantly false claims about the resolution of sub-sample delays in discrete-time systems? Not that I am holding my breath.

LOL, sorry this is too good! Sorry ncdrawl ...

it is rather funny, I admit.

a nobody throwing shit at a somebody.

Oh, harsh reaction! The s-word!
Is Bernie Hutchins a somebody to you?
The reality is that being a "somebody" doesn't matter, what matters is if the person knows the material. See the free link here, and there might be some tutorials that will help. Sorry I don't remember for sure it was too long ago when I read most of them:
See the link to "Free Materials" note that this is not just about electronic music, there is information on sampled systems, and digital filters. Very in depth, Bernie was an instructor at the graduate level and he is brilliant at explaining complex topics:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/

Also, Rabiner and Gold and Oppenheim and Schafer
are fairly standard texts in digital signal processing.

This is advanced material and you need a real understanding
to discuss it.

And by the way, Bernie is a true gentleman who could not give a damn about being a "somebody" to people like you so please no cheap shots. He is legendary at the University where he was an instructor, for the fact that he could actually teach, LOL!

So why not wait until Dr. Kunchur to respond with his "5 page" reply to be posted? What about all the peer reviews etc you forgot to mention, not to mention Sony, Hitachi, Pioneer manufacturing higher rez. So you are against DSD, SACD etc.

Next, here are some links showing what happens to the signal, in terms of digital photographs, so one can visually see what anti-aliasing does. As one can see, your link/author's paper does not tell the whole story, which it was not meant to. Dr. Kunchur covers this in his previous email replies I have posted in Interesting papers, page 30.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, notice how anti-aliasing filters distort the digital photos. (That is why I like to use a real film type camera.)

Next, a good test is to compare a typical $40 Grado cartridge and cd player to live instruments on hand? This provides a double check to see how close digital theory actually is.

I just saw a movie "The Fabulous Dorseys" (1947), which used 1940s mics and recording equipment, that reproduced saxaphones and clarinets with better accuracy than the multiple "high quality" cds I have. (Remember those real instruments on hand to compare against.) Too bad we are digressing backwards in musical accuracy because of insufficient testing.

So the link you provided leaves alot to be desired in this case. I would suggest that you and others take some time and do some actual testing. After all isn't it all about improving the accuracy of musical reproduction so we can enjoy it more.

Quote:
Pete, forgive my asking....

but I do not see just how I raised your ire?? My comments were directed towards Andy, Krabapple, and Johnston

are you related to one of them?? Life partners?

You know, I've seen a lot of good posts by you, but in this case I don't like your style. I happened across some other posts of yours and I think it is better just to drop out based on what I've seen in those. Your style is one I just don't want to put up with. I did not intend to take this thread off topic, just wanted to comment about andy_c's joke.

What annoys me is when lay people latch on to some erroneous theory and promote it as fact. As a degreed engineer with over 25 years of significant professional experience (billion dollar companies) I can easily spot BS.

Thanks.

*crunch* *crunch* *crunch*

Quote:
I beg of you "engineering types" who have nothing better to do than take pot shots at those in esteemed positions..

please leave.

One problem with this discussion is that you don't know enough to know whether Kunchur is right or wrong regarding his claim of temporal resolution of discrete-time systems, so you rely on what amounts to an argument from authority (the "esteemed" thing). In the engineering world, claims are judged on whether or not they are correct - plain and simple. The correctness in turn is judged by well-established theory, assuming there is such a theory that covers the claim. In this case, the theory is very well established, and has been since the sixties. Unfortunately, Kunchur has made a number of statements in his papers that indicate he does not have a DSP background. Some of his statements regarding temporal resolution depend on heuristic arguments when there are rigorous mathematical techniques that completely describe what's going on. Using heuristic arguments, one runs the risk of believing something that's in the "plausible but wrong" category.

There is even existing software, which you use yourself, that makes use of the sub-sample temporal resolution of discrete-time systems every time it runs - Audio DiffMaker. Its author has made the same objection to Kunchur's claims that the other engineering types here and elsewhere have.

You've called me names, but I won't do the same with you - though I'm tempted. What I will do though, is ask you to reconsider not just your point of view in this matter, but also your entire approach to the whole situation. You're acting as an enabler for someone publishing false information.

Quote:
when you develop a study featuring a support team encompassing several disciplines(several of whom , like DR Kunchur, are also PhDs(not just "degreed") me and the other "syncophants" will take what you have to say to heart... until then...it is background noise.

Well, then, I guess you should be taking everything I have to say to heart.

I've done all this, and it's all in the public record. Not only that, I've the awards to show that others who have actual understanding value what I've done. Of course, I'm not a PhD, I worked my way up the ladder from lab assistant to lead researcher with portfolio. I can show the work I did, and how many people in this world actually use it.

When will you show some actual respect, then?

Quote:
What I will do though, is ask you to reconsider not just your point of view in this matter, but also your entire approach to the whole situation. You're acting as an enabler for someone publishing false information.

Sadly, this happens very often in the high end for whatever reason.

I would like to see Dr. K's explanation of how his cell phone modem works. Or how 8-psk works.

Quote:
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/papers/FAQs.pdf

ahem

Sigh.

Talk about equivocation...

It is good, at least, that we have clarification of the time resolution of a PCM signal, and that we see agreement that the sampling rate is not in fact the limit of time resolution. So, he and I accept that his cell phone works.

As to his definition of "bluring", that's a simple result of filtering in any 20khz system. ANY 20kHz system, not just a digital system. The only way that sampling rate relates is via the highest frequency in the passband.

The restatement of sync reconstruction is elementary, it is of course correct, it's how I made the second set of graphs I posted in the other thread.

The argument regarding level, for 1 vs. two pulses separated in time is missing a very simple, obvious part, I believe, in that the change in frequency response IN-BAND is not mentioned. The overall level is not the issue, the change in signal spectrum is the issue, and is in fact quite at a JND in and of itself.

Therein needs to be more discussion, as such an effect can be created (the rolloff due to the two pulses being a 2 tap FIR filter creating about .9 dB rolloff at 20kHz) inside of a 20kHz bandwidth.

The question of sampling is irrelevant here, the only question, now that we have agreement on the behavior of a PCM system, is the overall bandwidth of the system, and what aspects of his experiment can be examined and represented within a 20kHz bandwidth.

The rolloff at 20kHz due to high-frequency filtering in the two-poulse case can be observed, easily, and that rolloff is still above the JND.

Ergo, that would be the next question to forward.

The question is not overall level (although I'm surprised that EQ could not bring the overall level closer than .2dB this is not the main issue), but rather the spectrum of one pulse vs. two pulses separated by 5 microseconds. The separation of 5 microseconds is the determining factor here, because that is what determines the rolloff at 20kHz (or of course at any other frequency). So, regardless of the pulse shape, the same amount of rolloff for two vs. one will occur, and assuming the pulse has substantial high frequency content (i.e. audible content at 20kHz) the effect of this rolloff will be perceptable to an unimpaired listener in a very good listening environment.

But this isn't a sampling-rate issue, it's a simple question of linear filtering.

Edited to add:

It's good that we're getting to what he meant, as opposed to what he said. Still, the vision comparison is simply equivocation, too, the eye doesn't work anything like the ear. One is a spatial sensor, the other a time/frequency analyzer, and the effects that matter to one are not very important to the other.

I've a deck on hearing vs. vision up at www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm

Be a good place to start on that issue, now that it's been rasied.

This is an excellent example of how some treat us while we help to improve the audio experience. Notice the opposite positions in the two strings mentioned, and the insults. (That is why I am posting in this string.)

J_J:

Quote:
As to his definition of "bluring", that's a simple result of filtering in any 20khz system. ANY 20kHz system, not just a digital system. The only way that sampling rate relates is via the highest frequency in the passband.

Yet another change in your position. How many does that make now J_J, (Woodenville). Yet both you and Krabapple disparaged me (see page 53 of Interesting Papers) with these comments.
J_J:

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

And Krabapple:

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

Quite interesting how you can disparage me while conceding to Dr. Kunchur (me, Dr. Kunchur's peers, 3 national organizations etc.). Stating one position on one string and then the opposite position on another string is a no no.

J_J, Krabapple, you both have yourselves in quite a mess.

So for 50 some odd pages in "Interesting Papers" string, you fighting tooth and toenail (even personal attacks), against, "blurring", which I and then Dr. Kunchur stated on page 30 (my post #69424); now you suddenly agree. Let's continue to refresh everyone's memory.

Dr. Kunchur, page 30 of "Interesting Papers":

Quote:
Similarly, if you have two sharp peaks of sound pressure separated by less than the sampling period, the two will become blurred together:

And from Dr. Kunchur's same email to me.

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

And the links I presented, backing up Dr. Kunchur, so one can visually see what occurs. Both digital audio and digital video use anti-aliasing filters and produce the same typical problems, blurring. Dr. Kunchur explains this quite effectively on page 30 of my post in Interesting Papers.

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

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

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

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

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

So suddenly you agree and change positions yet again. And you conceded to Dr. Kunchur that "blurring" does occur in the audio realm. To state digital video and digital audio do not have the same problems is simply a cop out, which my links clearly demonstrates. Talk about equivocation.

How about this tatic which I caught you on Interesting Papers string.
J_J:

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

Me:

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

If you had read Dr. Kunchur's papers, you would not have had to include the phrase "Either somebody misquoted the guy" as you would have known what Dr. Kunchur's paper stated. Of course your statement is an attempt to diffuse your differences with Dr. Kunchur and place it elsewhere. Unfortunately, your deception didn't work.

So Dr. Kunchur is entensively PhD peer reviewed, has 3 national organizations that concur, and then published. So Dr. Kunchur has mainstream science backing him.

This is a good example of how some treat us while we help to improve the audio experience. It is also a good example of J_J equivocating over and over.

I expect an apology from you.

SAS waxed wroth:

Quote:
So Dr. Kunchur is entensively PhD peer reviewed, has 3 national organizations that concur, and then published. So Dr. Kunchur has mainstream science backing him.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself with this '3 national organizations *concur*' business.

Presentation of a report at conferences and symposia (and its publication in the minutes) does not necessarily imply wholesale 'concurrence' of the 'organization' with the claims being made by the presenter. Nor does it imply formal 'peer review' as performed on work submitted for publication by the better journals. Hell, even publication after peer review doesn't imply that the 'organization' concurs with the findings or guarantees them to be true. They just 'guarantee' it met their standards for scientific presentation. Papers can and do get retracted by journals (and authors) even after peer review. Once the peer-reviewed data are out there, the real fun begins with testing by others and comparison to others' findings on the same topic.

It's a cartoonish view of how academic science works to believe otherwise. Have you ever been in academia, been a scientist, or even hung out with one? It would seem not.

Quote:
I expect an apology from you.

JJ has repeatedly engaged the actual substance of Dr. Kuncher's quoted claim, and now his pdf response, while you keep posting and reposting the same inapposite links and making the same argument from authority.

Given what you've written to and about him, the actual apologies need to go the other way, from you to JJ, but that will never happen.

Quote:

Quote:
Thanks.*crunch* *crunch* *crunch*

dont really get it, but ..ok? [

As in 'putting it through the cruncher' -- i.e., reading it carefully and seeing if it holds up. This is what sciencey types do to papers.

Or else Axon's just eating Crackerjacks. ;>

Personally I'm going to read it crunchily as I was trained to; but since my own field of expertise is quite removed from the topic at hand, I expect not to understand all of it, and thus I'll do what Dr. Kunchur did -- pass it on to folks who know more about the details than I do, and see what they say.

As a start, since Dr. Kunchur negatively references (and links to) a Hydrogenaudio post in his reply, I've posted a pointer to his pdf on that HA thread, so at least the poster there has a chance to respond.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=47827&view=findpost&p=646398

Quote:

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself with this '3 national organizations *concur*' business.

Presentation of a report at conferences and symposia (and its publication in the minutes) does not necessarily imply wholesale 'concurrence' of the 'organization' with the claims being made by the presenter. Nor does it imply formal 'peer review' as performed on work submitted for publication by the better journals.

I think he already knows that. He's on ignore, so I have no idea what kind of hatred and lies he's spreading now, but if he's claiming that any organization that allowed him to speak at a conference ENDORSES the work, eeh, no, that can be seen at the start of every conference record I've ever seen.

Quote:

JJ has repeatedly engaged the actual substance of Dr. Kuncher's quoted claim, and now his pdf response, while you keep posting and reposting the same inapposite links and making the same argument from authority.

Given what you've written to and about him, the actual apologies need to go the other way, from you to JJ, but that will never happen.

I've concluded that Sasaudio will simply not behave in a responsible, professional fashion. Hence my ignoring him.

Quote:

I think he already knows that. He's on ignore, so I have no idea what kind of hatred and lies he's spreading now, but if he's claiming that any organization that allowed him to speak at a conference ENDORSES the work, eeh, no, that can be seen at the start of every conference record I've ever seen.

We can do 'ignore' here? Goody! I have some ignorin' to do.

I went back and expanded my reply you quoted to make it even clearer (I hope) what various levels of academic vetting mean re: 'concurrence' with a researcher's findings.

Real 'concurrence' comes when the findings have withstood both peer review of the paper (the initial review and the responses after publication), and physical 'peer review' via replication of the work and/or finding that it agrees with or explains new data (or successfully re-evaluated old data) -- i.e., the test of time.

Thanks Mr Looks-Like-Johnny-Cash

Skimmed the FAQ doc here at work, very interesting. Will curl up with it this weekend.

Really appreciate you bringing this guy's work to our attention

Quote:
SAS waxed wroth:

Quote:
So Dr. Kunchur is entensively PhD peer reviewed, has 3 national organizations that concur, and then published. So Dr. Kunchur has mainstream science backing him.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself with this '3 national organizations *concur*' business.

Presentation of a report at conferences and symposia (and its publication in the minutes) does not necessarily imply wholesale 'concurrence' of the 'organization' with the claims being made by the presenter. Nor does it imply formal 'peer review' as performed on work submitted for publication by the better journals. Hell, even publication after peer review doesn't imply that the 'organization' concurs with the findings or guarantees them to be true. They just 'guarantee' it met their standards for scientific presentation. Papers can and do get retracted by journals (and authors) even after peer review. Once the peer-reviewed data are out there, the real fun begins with testing by others and comparison to others' findings on the same topic.

It's a cartoonish view of how academic science works to believe otherwise. Have you ever been in academia, been a scientist, or even hung out with one? It would seem not.

Quote:
I expect an apology from you.

JJ has repeatedly engaged the actual substance of Dr. Kuncher's quoted claim, and now his pdf response, while you keep posting and reposting the same inapposite links and making the same argument from authority.

Given what you've written to and about him, the actual apologies need to go the other way, from you to JJ, but that will never happen.

Neither negative response is surprising, Krab or J_Js.

Read Dr. Kunchur's response again, from page 30 of Interesting papers string.

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

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

After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want. More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process.

As one can see, Krabapple neatly slipped you a mickey attempting to dupe you into believing the rigors are merely a rubber stamp type of approval. How is that for being honest to you folks.

Secondly, Krabapple attempts excuse after excuse, anything to argue against Dr. Kunchur's papers. For 50 pages in Interesting Papers, nothing is stated about time frame of the papers, nor the national organizations being a rubber stamp. But they certainly dodged the evidence of deceptions I presented in my last post. Notice Krabapple never got on J_J for his tatics/deceptions and changing positions.
Who is in Whose pocket here.

The fact is Dr. Kunchur has the blessings of three national organizations which Krabapple and J_J wish to hide or discredit as much as possible. Lets list them.

Dr. Kunchur, 3 national organizations, PhD peers, anonymous Referees, U of I professor of electrical engineering, Stanford professor, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook a collaboration of 26 RCA engineers, at least these manufacturers Sony, Hitachi, Pioneer (who manufacture higher rez cd players) have all disagreed at least partially, if not wholly, with J_Js philosophies. Does that give you a clue Krabapple?

Quote:
reposting the same inapposite links and making the same argument from authority.

First off, I don't see you condemning J_J for using authority to hype himself many times. I also don't see you wondering about his many flipflops in position and I see you sidestepped J_Js deceptions, at least twice in the last page alone.

Your biggest problem is that these are mainstream science bodies you are attempting to discredit, and as much as you would like to dismiss them, you cannot. And you are a biology major claiming to know more than national organizations. That is a good laugh.

So you can continue to lose credibility, as J_J has, or you can quit and limit your loses. Which is it Krabapple. The more you post, the more individuals see under the facade you and J_Js have erected.

Quote:
Thanks Mr Looks-Like-Johnny-Cash

Skimmed the FAQ doc here at work, very interesting. Will curl up with it this weekend.

Really appreciate you bringing this guy's work to our attention

Me too NC. Thanks.

Quote:
Dear. I have added a few sentences to the end of the "Temporal resolution and digital signals">"Digital audio recording" subsection on pg. 2 of the FAQ document, which may (or may not) help. Beyond this I don't have anything to add. (I don't understand the other question.) The forum poster seems to be stuck in some small mathematical subspace and is missing the big-picture essence of my research and its implications. But I don't think this can be mended and we will simply have to agree to disagree. But anyway now I have to concentrate on my other ongoing research, which is investigating high-speed vortex dynamics and electromagnetic responses of superconductors and won't be able to participate in the HiFi arena for some time. One thing y'all may want to bring to the forum participants' attention is that a more easily readable and condensed article has been written in HiFi Critic magazine and this may be more palatable to readers who are less technically inclined. A link to this article is now also posted on my web page (http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm). As mentioned above, the FAQ article linked to this web page has also been updated. Thanks to you for acting as a liason between the forums and me.

In other words, more equivocation, then abandonment.

The easily calculated, easily measured, easily determined to be audible difference resulting from the two-tap FIR filter is hardly a "small mathematical subspace" and can explain all of his results.

And those results do not require anything above 20kHz.

What else is being avoided is that the issue of sampling interval was irrelevant at the start, and that the original quote expresses something that is just plain wrong.

It is time for Dr. K to admit he just made a mistake. Everyone has a few of those.

Quote:
show some grace. some humility. above all, some class.

Yes, all the "fucksticks", "dicks", "assholes" etc. etc. should definitely do that.

Quote:

Quote:

It is time for Dr. K to admit he just made a mistake. Everyone has a few of those.

and yours is continuing to sling mud here.
show some grace. some humility. above all, some class.

congratulations are in order, as you are the 2nd person to make it onto my ignore list.

Your cowardace is noted.

SAS waxed wroth again:

Quote:

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

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

After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want. More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process.

As one can see, Krabapple neatly slipped you a mickey attempting to dupe you into believing the rigors are merely a rubber stamp type of approval. How is that for being honest to you folks.

Sorry, sparky, but you're the one talking about 'rubber stamps'. I'm talking about how science works. Let's leave aside that of those three conferences, one might expect experts in DSP as relates to audio (one of the main issue of contention here), at perhaps *one*; nor does the opportunity to conduct a 'grueling' interrogation mean that one was conducted; so perhaps a record of attendees and the Q&A sessions would tell your tale better.

One really has to wonder why some of these venues and journals he's pubnlished in were chosen for this work, given that it is making a remarkable claim of a new audible deficit for Redbook audio. I find his choice of venues for grueling interrogation on this matter curious. I suspect I would not be alone in that. Dr. Daniel J. Levitin -- psychoacoustics researcher and author of the popular book 'This Is Your Brain On Music' has a chapter on experimental design for psychoacoustics research in that 1999 book I linked to earlier. In it he writes:

Quote:
Two of the better journals for psychoacoustic research are the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America and Perception & Psychophysics [emphasis mine]. Other journals publish articles on a wider variety of research topics. The following is a list of recommended journals and their focus. The first five are published by the American Psychological Association' [I'm omitting the 'focus' part to save my poor fingers; the point is made even without them]:
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Review
Journal of Experimental Psychology (JEP): General
JEP: Human Perception & Performance
JEP: Learning, Memory & Cognition
Psycholonomic Bulleting & Review
Music Perception
Psychology of Music
Psychological Sciecnes
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Science
Scientific American
Nature

Really, despite your inane rantings about the AES, it seems to me that JAES would have been the logical venue for Dr. Kunchur's work, or at least a conference presentation. Dr. Kunchur's work combines claims about DSP technology with claims about psychoacoustics. JAES and AES conventions feature plenty of articles on audio DSP; plenty of articles on testing audible effects of measurable differences. Barring that, JASA makes sense as a next-best place to publish -- but he hasn't actually published in it. He did at least present at two ASA (Acoustical Society of America) conferences and that's what I'd be interested in reading a transcript of the Q&A for. His paper in 'Acustica' stands as the most impressive journal in the list of three (ISI says it hasn't been cited by anyone yet, but it's a young paper). Interestingly, it's a European journal. Perhaps he will publish a peer-reviewed paper in the JASA or JAES when next he takes a break from pursuing superconductive nano-structures? Because these presentations for physicists and otolaryngeologists just don't impress as the proper forums for guellingly interrogating claims about deficits in digital signal processing for home audio, and audibility thereof.

Quote:
Secondly, Krabapple attempts excuse after excuse, anything to argue against Dr. Kunchur's papers. For 50 pages in Interesting Papers, nothing is stated about time frame of the papers, nor the national organizations being a rubber stamp. But they certainly dodged the evidence of deceptions I presented in my last post. Notice Krabapple never got on J_J for his tatics/deceptions and changing positions.
Who is in Whose pocket here.

Since you don't seem to understand what JJ's position is, I don't see how you can even know if he's 'changed positions'.

Quote:

The fact is Dr. Kunchur has the blessings of three national organizations which Krabapple and J_J wish to hide or discredit as much as possible. Lets list them.

JJ has the 'blessing' of at least as many 'organizations', and *his* are actually more directly relevant to the topic at hand. You, and Dr. Kunchur seem not be addressing that (Dr. Kunchur with his latest , and apparently last, missive, seems to think that everyone here is a 'layman' on these matters, compared to him).

Quote:
Dr. Kunchur, 3 national organizations, PhD peers, anonymous Referees, U of I professor of electrical engineering, Stanford professor, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook a collaboration of 26 RCA engineers, at least these manufacturers Sony, Hitachi, Pioneer (who manufacture higher rez cd players) have all disagreed at least partially, if not wholly, with J_Js philosophies. Does that give you a clue Krabapple?

About you, yes, but I already had that clue long ago -- since the first time you tried *that* particular argument from authority.

Quote:

Quote:
reposting the same inapposite links and making the same argument from authority.

First off, I don't see you condemning J_J for using authority to hype himself many times.

He's arguing from his *own* authority, you silly man, or else referencing classical science (e.g. Fourier, JNDs).
And his arguments have been directly on the topic, not the barrage of wikipoo that you keep posting.

Quote:
So you can continue to lose credibility, as J_J has, or you can quit and limit your loses. Which is it Krabapple. The more you post, the more individuals see under the facade you and J_Js have erected.

Crazy SASman, from the spectacle you've made of yourself here, it's safe to say you aren't, and have never been, and never will be, a credible judge of either 'credibility' or 'authority'.

And it's Dr. Kunchur who appears to have 'quit'.