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.

Quote:
Sorry, sparky, but you're the one talking about 'rubber stamps'.

>So now you claiming those organizations are easy "rubber stamps". I sure didn't.

>Having trouble being honest right off the bat, I see. Read my last post catching you, but please don't get too angry that we caught you yet again. You and J_J certainly do not inspire confidence here, or in Hydrogen forum for that matter.

Interesting that after J_J concedes and humbles himself to Dr. Kunchur about "blurring", J_J immediately attempts another attack in different area not covered before.
What a couple of sore dishonest losers.

Quote:
I'm talking about how science works.

Wew, just caught you playing games last post Krabapple. Let's try to be somewhat honest to the public Krab.

Quote:
Let's leave aside that of those three conferences,

What are you scared of. You are sure quick to get rid of the 3, third party, national organizations. As well as you should be. They "blessed" the papers and make J_J look bad.
And we know who owns you since you now respond in J_Js place.

Quote:
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.

So these national organizations do not have PhDs who can do the math and science? Dr. Kunchur has visited and collaborated with experts in those fields as he has stated. He is also an expert since Physics covers digital, so Dr. Kunchur understands the field quite well. Come on, be honest with the public Krabapple instead of attempting to prove Physics discipline does not understands math, nor the digital arena. Of course that is totally absurd.

Some here have contacted professors at U of I and Stanford. Both concur with Dr. Kunchur, not your boss J_J nor you. Sorry but that is the way it is Krabapple. What matters is what mainstream science believes, and they believe Dr. Kunchur, not J_J or you.

So J_Js constant rethoric claiming Dr. Kunchur admitted he is incorrect is of course wrong since J_J has conceded that "blurring" does occur, concurring what Dr. Kunchur has stated. So now J_J suddenly reverses himself yet again. Does J_J actually know what he believes. Of course it has come to our attention that his employer manufactures software. How about that.
J_J:

Quote:
We don't make audiophile stuff. We are the "top end consumer" signal processing folks by charter.

KBK:

Quote:
Due to that aspect, I do feel you need to put your credentials and connections into your signature. Basically, your components, be it software or hardware design..ARE utilized in audiophile equipment and DO have an involvement in the business.

How about that, a conflict of interest. No wonder J_J has been attacking Dr. Kunchur page after page.

Quote:
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.

Well, J_J has agreed that "blurring" does occur so he admits 16/44 has problems. Also interesting that you have not asked J_J to do the same. Why the double standard.

Quote:
I find his choice of venues for grueling interrogation on this matter curious. I suspect I would not be alone in that.

Then why have you not asked J_J to submit to those organizations. Again why the double standard.

Quote:
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].

Quote:
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

Quote:

Now name what J_J has published in. How many Krabapple. Let's be honest. The fact is 16/44 is not good enough for the best stereo systems, as Dr. Kunchur has concluded and J_J has agreed. And it costs no more to move up. But if you want to manipulate people into inferior stereo systems, be my guest Krabapple, and J_J.

Quote:
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.

You heard what Jneutron said about AES, didn't you? I know I would want superior quality organizations, third party with no strings attached to certain manufacturers. And we know the conflict of interest J_J has. No wonder J_J attacks Dr. Kunchur's credibility.

Quote:
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.

Are those articles verified by other national organizations? If they are, we want to know, so name them. Are they accurate? Jneutron seems to think very little of AES or JAES. And remember J_J is a "fellow" in AES, of course you are going to recommend them. But with J_J as a "fellow", I would be plenty worried.

Quote:
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?

JASA sure. I would be careful about JAES. We need those experts in hearing/perception as Dr. Kunchur's papers demand. So he rightly chose the national organizations to bless his papers. They are real mainstream third party experts.

Quote:
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.

But they do hold superior knowledge about hearing/perception, including ultrasonics and the need thereof for Dr. Kunchur's papers. Don't see them blessing J_J or you.

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'.

Interesting since J_J conceded to Dr. Kunchur (and me with the same position) about "blurring". I stated "blurring" as a problem time and time again in "Interesting Papers" string. So you just got caught bold face lying to the public again Krabapple. Can one imagine what Hydrogen Audio must be like after seeing the constant deceptions these guys attempt on this forum.

The more the public sees the real you and J_J, the more they distrust both of you. I sure wouldn't trust you guys.

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).

We have requested organization names that have reviewed J_J's work several times, but he continually refuses. Will this be any different this time? J_J or will you just sidestep the requests. Can you produce or is it just another smoke and mirrors tatic Krabapple.

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.

These are national, respected organizations, universities, all mainstream third party with PhD professors who instruct, real professionals. They know their stuff. J_J refuses to disclose any backing whatsoever. Maybe you will. By the way, since J_J has used authority many many times, why have you continued to refuse to demand this same information from J_J. Of course you will sidestep this question yet again, indicating J_J owns you.

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.

What a cop out that was Krabapple. Then Dr. Kunchur can also from his own authority, right. Since he is using mainstream science, not left field science you and J_J attempt to use. J_J, who continually attacked us and claimed "blurring" was not occurring for 50+ pages in Interesting Papers. Now here, he suddenly concedes to Dr. Kunchur and me. And we find out his employer manufacturers solftware. How interesting, his position which helps his employer.

Are you a joke or what. "arguing from his own authority". This is one of the biggest laughs of the year.

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'.

That is interesting since J_J conceded to Dr. Kunchur and me that "blurring" does occur. What is your cop out now Krabapple.

The rest is damage control with the typical propaganda.

Quote:
with all the credits under his name, being a PhD, head of a Dept and all, he has no time to argue with random trolls. ( i mean...seriously...what reputable person would argue with a troll with the handle "krabapple, jj.///

Wow, still in denial, I see.

Quote:

go away and take JJ, AndyC, etc with you. You all have no purpose here.

You sound just like Governor Wallace, standing at the gates of Ol' Miss.

Quote:
go away and take JJ, AndyC, etc with you. You all have no purpose here.

Thanks in no small part to your demonstrated hostility to reasoned technical discussion (EDIT: and that of several others here), I will follow your advice - and send my (sizeable!) comments to Dr. Kunchur directly, and cc them here.

Hmmm. Well, this sounds like a positive development.

His FAQ definitely clears up some important issues, but leaves others open for discussion. That's all I'll say for now.

More mudslinging later

Quote:
You cannot show up at a place, start slinging mud, and expect not to be checked on it...

This is your problem, I guess. Pointing out what surely looks like an obvious error is hardly mudslinging.

And, when we get to the bottom of it, we see that the words, as expressed, were wrong, but we don't know intent. (and it doesn't matter) What we also see is a failure to respond to what the question has really devolved down to, the frequency response of 1 vs. two pulses with a given separation. And the frequency response, inside a 20kHz bandwidth, is different enough to hear, just barely, in a good setting, with completely unimpaired listeners.

This proves nothing that isn't already known, I fear.

You and your buddies are the ONLY ones slinging mud. You are descriging only your own horrid, antisocial behavior.

Quote:
I dont know that he would have time to answer everyone's questions, which is why I was acting as a go-between....I have said nothing about you, Axon...I just take issue with the hostile tone of JJ, Krapable, and AndyCs posts..

I am still forwarding questions along to him. He answers me quickly(as I have been fielding all the questions)...but if you want to take your chances and go around his preferred means of delivery, go ahead.

I'm just going to upload a PDF and link to it. If you won't filter it, I don't have a problem with you sending the link to him, but it seems a little pointless to just have a middleman for that particular situation.

Universities are not filled with ponies and cute furry animals. If you're wrong, you are going to get the (notional) sh*t beat out of you. jj is unusually unmagnanimous towards trolls and people willing to start a fight, but if you think "Dr. Kunchur needs to admit he is wrong" is unacceptable, I think you have a seriously warped view of acceptable academic discourse.

That said.... I intend to be particularly careful in my words, in that attacks on education, character, etc are wholly unnecessary. But I'm sure what's left will appear insulting. <sigh>

Quote:
Universities are not filled with ponies and cute furry animals. If you're wrong, you are going to get the (notional) sh*t beat out of you. jj is unusually unmagnanimous towards trolls and people willing to start a fight, but if you think "Dr. Kunchur needs to admit he is wrong" is unacceptable, I think you have a seriously warped view of acceptable academic discourse.

Maybe you missed it, but J_J just conceded that Dr. Kunchur was correct by stating "blurring" problems do occur with 16/44. So 16/44 is not the highest fidelity, as both Dr. Kunchur and I have stated all along, for over 50 pages in "Interesting String" while constantly being insulted.

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.

Which has been my position in "Interesting Papers" for some 50+ pages.

Now Dr. Kunchur:

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

Also I see J_J has worked at Neural Audio for some 15 months, and Neural audio sells products for production facilities, stations etc. Most is 48khz or below. So he arrived with products already in place.

Now you wish to retract all the vicious attacks and insults thrown towards Dr. Kunchur and my way since page 1 of "Interesting Papers".

Quote:

Maybe you missed it, but J_J just conceded that Dr. Kunchur was correct by stating "blurring" problems do occur with 16/44.

Once again, you're an outright, obscene liar, and you're quoting dishonestly, quite out of context, in order to support your lie.

The "blurring" you whine about is a simple consequence of bandlimiting and has NOTHING to do with sampling rate, other than that the sampling rate sets the highest frequency a baseband PCM encoder can handle. (i.e. fs/2 - delta) Nowhere have I agreed that it is a "problem", and in that, you are engaging in the most obvious of lies.

The "blurring", in this case, permits both the ear and the meter to tell the difference in the 1 vs. 2 pulse experiment. IN A BANDWIDTH UNDER 20 kHz.

The "blurring" is an elementary consequence of Fourier Analysis, and if you are ever, ONCE, claiming that I haven't specified that from the first time the issue came up, you are an outright liar. It's SO elementary that it's astonishing you find it at all remarkable.

The "blurring" (of this extent), which is properly referred to as filtering by the way, has not been shown to have anything substantive to do with the auditory process. If it were, that would be great news. But we don't see that here.

What's more, equivocating by appealing to the visual system is wrong in so many ways that I hardly know where to start.

The visual system is a 2D spatial receptor, with almost no time response, and no intrinsic time filtering to speak of above flicker rates, and even that is very nonlinear and unfilterlike.

The ear is a time/frequency analyzer, with intrinsic filtering that works up to 20kHz, and higher in small children, bats, dogs, and cats (among other things).

What matters to the eye can often not be detected by the ear. What matters to the ear may not be detectable by the eye. So live with reality. Try putting a "gamma" into your audio, and see how you like the distortion. Try filtering your raw analog signal at 50kHz (just so we're out of the range of contention here), and see if you can hear it. (But in the first case you won't see any substantive difference in an image for any small change in gamma, and for the second you WILL see smoothing of the time waveform. Q.E.D.

Now, riddle me this, the bandwidth of the widest filter in the ear is about 6kHz. Yes, about 6 kHz. And we can detect these effects inside of a 6kHz bandwidth. That's not speculation, you can go check out Bill Yost's book, or Brian Moore's book, and find out for yourself.

As a question to you, if the 6kHz bandwidth is at 14khz to 20kHz, do you think that makes any time-resolution difference as to if it were from 100Hz to 6100Hz? Does the actual frequencies involved matter, or only the bandwidth?

Do tell, please. This is a test, and you have previously failed several.

Quote:

Quote:
You cannot show up at a place, start slinging mud, and expect not to be checked on it...

This is your problem, I guess. Pointing out what surely looks like an obvious error is hardly mudslinging.

Don't be insane. You have --never-- pointed any "errors" by Dr. Kunchur, and the entire crew of doctored scientists who discussed and peer-reviewed his work. All you have ever done in this thread is what you just (carefully) described: "Pointing out what surely looks like an obvious error". The "error" is in fact in you thinking you've "surely found an error". That is possibly the result of you nearly killing yourself trying to find an error, --any-- error, and to pretend to everyone that you have found errors in the esteemed Dr. Kunchur's psychoacoustics studies. When Dr. Kunchur explained this to you, you kept on behaving in a willfully ignorant manner, ignoring your errors in understanding his work. So at this point, I certainly don't expect you to admit you are wrong. You haven't even admitted you were wrong about the expected tolerances of xover caps yet; which you also got wrong. I suppose this last fact will result in yet another hair-tearing drama-queen theatrical rant from you (sigh). So be my guest, run around in a circle, screaming and pulling your hair out, j_j, like you do with SAS and others every time they point out your failures in logic, reasoning or fact. It won't change the facts about you, which are evident to one and all, including as I see, NCDRAWL.

Who calmly pointed out the marked differences between you, an I-dont-know-what who couldn't buy an ounce of respect around here if it were given away with free beer, and a -real- scientist who came here as honored guest; namely Dr. M.N. Kunchur. They are differences I have pointed out before, differences we can all see, despite your attempts to obscure the facts. So just to make your ceaseless attempts to dupe readers with falsehoods a little bit harder for you, here is me contrasting your statement about yourself and your allies from the Hydrogen Audio Cult forum, with the facts about you and your allies from Hydrogen:

j_j's falsehood:

Quote:
You and your buddies are the ONLY ones slinging mud. You are descriging only your own horrid, antisocial behavior.

the beginning portion of a very long and deeply personal mudslinging rant from j_j, in response to a technical argument:

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe you missed it, but J_J just conceded that Dr. Kunchur was correct by stating "blurring" problems do occur with 16/44.

Once again, you're an outright, obscene liar, and you're quoting dishonestly, quite out of context, in order to support your lie.

The "blurring" you whine about is a simple consequence of bandlimiting and has NOTHING to do with sampling rate, other than that the sampling rate sets the highest frequency a baseband PCM encoder can handle. (i.e. fs/2 - delta) Nowhere have I agreed that it is a "problem", and in that, you are engaging in the most obvious of lies.

Yeah, I think just that part of your rant would fall under "horrid, antisocial behavior" on your part, for a technical debate.

Now we've seen that what you say about you not slinging mud is a lie, but what about you also claiming your buddies do not sling mud? What do they have to say about it?.....

andy_c, j_j's buddy and brother in pseudoscientific arms, wrote:

Quote:
His FAQ definitely clears up some important issues, but leaves others open for discussion. That's all I'll say for now.

More mudslinging later

I think we can only conclude from this j_j, that you delude yourself with whatever you wish to believe; whether it is about yourself, about others, or about audio "science".

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe you missed it, but J_J just conceded that Dr. Kunchur was correct by stating "blurring" problems do occur with 16/44.

Once again, you're an outright, obscene liar, and you're quoting dishonestly, quite out of context, in order to support your lie.

The "blurring" you whine about is a simple consequence of bandlimiting and has NOTHING to do with sampling rate, other than that the sampling rate sets the highest frequency a baseband PCM encoder can handle. (i.e. fs/2 - delta) Nowhere have I agreed that it is a "problem", and in that, you are engaging in the most obvious of lies.

(Fs/2 is sampling frequency divided by 2. For 44khz sampling, 20khz is about it for bandwidth. If one wants 45khz bandwidth, then approx 100khz sampling rate is needed. So there is a connection between sampling rate and bandwidth.)

16/44 output has limited bandwidth, is bandlimiting, just like you stated, which is approximately 20khz with 16/44. And you stated bandlimiting "blurs" the signal. I have been stating that for 50 pages in another string with your violent objections. Ok, now you state:

J_J:

Quote:
The "blurring" you whine about is a simple consequence of bandlimiting

Page 4 JJ:

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.

If 20khz is not high enough then one needs to increase the bandwidth, higher frequency bandlimiting, thus higher sampling to minimize "blurring", for better, more natural music.

And digital analog and digital video both use anti-alias filters. And as my links clearly and visually demonstrate, digital photos are also "blurred".

By the way, you just joined Neural Audio some approx 16 months ago, and they were already manufacturing 48khz sampling rate equipment for production studios, and for stereo to surround sound, and visa versa. Shouldn't you be including this info in your signature since you have a clear conflict of interest.

As one can see, my statement clearly stands.The rest of J_Js post is nothing more than PR and misdirection. Please stop the incessant attacks and name calling, ok.

Quote:

As one can see, my statement clearly stands.The rest of J_Js post is nothing more than PR and misdirection. Please stop the incessant attacks and name calling, ok.

Your statement is an intellectual fraud.

Your posing is tiresome.

Back into ignore you go.

Quote:
Dr. Kunchur will be posting confutations in form of FAQ updates...will be doing that regularly.

Apparently he has been bestowed with a great deal of common sense to go with his impressive educational credentials... IE he avoids online arguments. Very smart decision.

In any political endeavor, it's to one's advantage to be able to control the spin. Of course, having a Lewinsky-like troll to do his dirty work for him certainly helps too.