| 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
A legitimate question was raised about his grasp of sampling theory, based on text quoted from his work.
Do you *seriously* think it's the people raising that question, that would make this place abhorrent?
If so, your sense of perspective is peculiar.
Why are 'conservative scientists' having 'difficulty' with these competing concepts, if 'one of them must be correct'? Is it all explained by sheer intellectual inertia in the face of paradigm change, or could it be that they have other arguments to make?
And what is it about pseudoscience and the grandiloquent cutting edges of cosmology and deep physics, that so attracts audiophiles? Is it the secret hope that somehow cosmology and 'morphic resonance' will come to the rescue of Intelligent Pebbles*, Tice clocks, and other such audio wackery, and vanquish the evil demon of double blind testing?
Sheldrake's work is, as best I can tell, pseudoscience ...until he can show it isn't. And with claims as far out as his (I had no idea just *how* far out, until I looked them up today), that proof is going to have to be extraordinary. But just keep your fingers crossed, fellows. As long as people need to believe, Tinker Bell won't die and Sheldrake's books and lectures will still sell.
(As a former developmental biologist myself, my money remains on Lewis Wolpert.)
(*doesn't the nutcase/mountebank/conceptual artist that runs Machina Dynamica already like to reference quantum woo to explain how his products 'work'?)
note to krabby & jj: For reasons of economy, I respond to you both in one go here. Now let's not pollute the discussion any further. I'm going easy on the both of you, so don't go on like children (as you pair usually do). Let this be the last word. Thank you for your understanding, and have a happy hanukah.
See, it makes more sense now, because that's indeed a good description of your behaviour. Every time I ask you to simply tell me what your real name is, you ignore me. Do you suppose it isn't obvious that you are trying to hide your identity behind a pseudoname? Every one who claims to be an audio professional here, is not afraid to say what their real name is. So I'm sorry "j_j", but until you tell me (as opposed to "alluding to") what your real name is, you will be regarded you as the "pseudonymous" sockpuppet troll that you are. Deal with it. Accept it. Live with it. And let me remind you, those are your rules. For you have accused every one of your opponents here who you even think is not using their real name of being sockpuppet trolls. Which I have to say is very bizarre, for someone who is afraid to even state his real name!
Spekaing of "tricky rapscallions", your intent to mislead is clear as a bell. For you quoted one single line of my respsonse, me accusing you of a falsehood, but deliberately omitted my supporting proof. Of course, you have previously admitted that your intent is to harrass me. So your repitition of these lies is nothing but more of that harrassment. I am repeating the full quote again, to show just how misleading and dishonest you have been in this thread; both with me and your debate opponents:
Now that proves that it is you sir, that is a "liar, plain and simple". That quote represents one of several repeated remarks to you stating you did NOT read the articles under discussion here, and are arguing only on out-of-context quotes. Which is unscientific and dishonest. And you repeatedly ignored this concern.
As you are known to be an intellectually hostile debater, and knowing of your dishonest debating tactics, I am starting to suspect that you DID read the full articles in question, and found you could NOT refute them. Therefore, you are only attempting to refute quotes that your trolling buddy Arny posted here, and claiming ignorance of the author's papers. Your intent appears to blame Steve for your failure to understand the full papers, from some of your more recent complaints. If you are not here engaging in dishonest debating tactics, "j_j Woodinville", why else would you ignore my repeated requests that you read Kunchur's papers, instead of trying to argue against a few short quotes? Yet you take the time to respond to meaningless posts in order to whinge again at me?
You said the very same thing in your very last response. And I responded to it, by noting the list of additional articles supporting Kunchur's work. So you must be getting dizzy, because you are going around in circles, repeating the very same dishonest remarks, attempting to mislead your readers yet again. Of course, you have previously admitted that your intent is to harrass me. So your repitition of these lies is nothing but more of that harrassment. Evading this additional research also makes it clear that you are debating dishonestly in this thread, and refusing to look at the facts.
Yes, when you keep repeating the same obvious lies, I think it means you've pretty much lost the debate, "j_j", and can't go any further.
=====================================================
krabapple (his real name) wrote:
LOL! Well you finally got something right, krabby. "Michael Joker Frog" is not my real name. It's the name you made up for me, to show us all what a sophomoric troll you are. Sorry, I mean "doctored professional biologist". LOL! Good one, that. Let me guess... you're a pHd biologist for Vandelay Industries?
Anyway, think about it, Krabby. I'll give you 3 days. At the end of that, let's see if you can figure out how dumb your risible attempt to insult me is. If you still can't get it, don't worry, I'll explain it to you. I have no trouble though, believing "krabapple" is your real name. 
Take what? You calling me fee-fee little names, like "Micheal Jagoff Frog", that your classmates pelted you with in grade 4? You make me laugh! I spent a year on a neo-nazi forum once, against people who could eat you alive for breakfast, and still have room for three more of your HA buddies. I was called a lot worse than your lame little grade-school insults. You, you would last about two and a half seconds there, before running back in tears to your little DBT-cult buddies on Hydrogen, begging for a group hug.
Now, here's the big question for the big baby: are you willing to heap the same unprovoked name-calling abuse and profanities at me on your -own- forum, Hydrogen Audio, where you might actually care about being booted off of? Let me know, I might have some surprises in store for you! 
I don't know, but I was hoping you could answer that. What is it about pseudoscience that so attracts members of Hydrogen Audio?
Spoken like a true (pseudo)scientist! You knew nothing of his work until today, so you haven't studied the research, but you can derive enough from what you did see to declare him comparable to "Tinker Bell", and state that any serious acceptance of Dr. Sheldrake's work requires a "need to believe". Ironically, that is the very problem occuring in this thread. Lot of loud would-be "scientists" running around, dismissing a work of which they have only "studied" short and few quotes from; and refusing to review the evidence in any depth, let alone in complete. But you're all perfectly okay with declaring that you have refuted the studies. Brilliant!
Great! So according to you, quantum dots are pseudoscience, there's no such thing as morphic resonance, and subjective audio DBT's are infallible.
Ok thanks Krabby. That's about all I needed to know about you. You're right. You're definitely Hydrogen Audio material.
I don't understand how you can be 'upset' (or Jan) by any perceived insults. why is it that anytime I see whinging about rudeness it's in a post full of diatribe and sewer talk by the 'offended ones'?
braying ass? sounds quite mild to me against your constant insults....
funnily enough, you should go and read how JA conducts himself on HA, in a completely gentlemanly manner.
Jan, and MJF, I would be curious to know what your system consists of. I am not going to buy into this particular debate, except to say that to me it is a case of the audiophile 'how many angels on the head of a pin'.
IF this type of stuff has any importance, then it can only be after all else is sorted. Speakers and speaker room interface for starters.
So, what speakers do you guys have? Can you post your in room measurements so I can have a look?
Can someone tell me what the 'beaming characteristics' of a 60khz signal might be (assuming the speaker can actually do it..lot of inflated marketing claims about that too I suspect)
which again comes back to...what speakers do you guys use?
ROFL
You don't really expect an answer from those guys, do you?
Not gonna happen. Not now, not ever. Been there, done that. You will not get an honest answer from either of them. Believe me, I've tried.
--Ethan
I would HOPE that if he doesn't comprehend, that he would then refrain from such serious professional accusations.
One, of course, never knows.
"I gotcha now, you wascawwy wabbit. I'm gonna bwow you into a million wabbit cutwets ... hehehe"
What is the sound of one troll knocking?
I tell you what speakers I use and then you do what? What will that information provide?
Agreed! On what date did B.B. King first arrive in Memphis and how long did he stay? Where did he have lunch, with whom and what did he order - not what did he receive, but what did he order?
First things first, you know.
Not holding my breath, am I, for that one to be answered sincerely.
"Well, what do you know, no mow buwwets"
"Just wait til I get that scwewy wabbit and that scwewball duck"
That's "wapscawwion" to you, fella.
LOL!
Well, let's see.
IF we can find the polar response, direct impulse response, and power response of the room, we can estimate a few things, such as how much 60kHz radiation actually reaches your ears directly, and to some extent (in order to do a good job, all aspects of the listening room must also be considered) how much will reach your ear in the listening room reverb.
I'd settle for direct, figuring out the room requires substantial knowlege of anything in the room that has either substantial surface area and/or volume. Small capsules full of silicates or small wooden discs can be ignored for this purpose.
Also, the relative humidity and temperature of the listening room come into play, because air is hardly a good transmission medium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyxO8Q8la8g&feature=related
(Crank it!)
"P"?!
I asked what the information would provide. Now, look, I know you prefer to pontificate and ignore the obvious but I have to ask just as I did before.
WTF is wrong with you?
On and on you go with nothing to say, "P". Yeah, we can figure out polar response and yadayada on and on. That's not the question, "P". And you know it.
Well, maybe you don't. There seems to be a lot of things you don't really know.
OK, here's the question again; what will that information provide to furthering this thread? And if it's that damned important, why didn't any of you other eggheads think to ask it before page twenty six?
And here's your question, "P".
What specific instrument did John Lee Hooker endorse and in what year did he sign the endorsement?
First things first.
How much do you know about music, "P"?
And I answered your question. So why are you feigning such upset?
ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!
Invalid comment because the 5us pulse will be eliminated by the filtering before it ever reaches the 16/44 digital section. Or do you believe in magic. Remember, the bandwidth is limited to 20khz. You want to be honest with the public J_J.
Shows what the output is using 16/44, just as predicted by the limiting 20khz bandwidth.
I see you are back to using two channels (earlier in this thread) to produce the 5us shift because you know you cannot do it in one channel accurately.
We asked for proof and did not get it. You yourself have commented that anecdotal stories are not proof. Why the double standard J_J? Playing manipulative and misleading games are we.
Krab:
Let Dr. Kunkur respond since he wrote the paper. Got a problem with that? Of course you do since you have continued to perform a hachet job on him.
The record clearly shows you and the other AES members did not contact Dr. Kunkur for his input. In fact you kept him in the dark and I was the one to contact him. I see you are still "assassinating" him before he has responded, similar to the first of this string. Very scientific of you Krab.
This comment shows the desparation Krab.
Not pertinent to this discussion so start a new string. Attempting to change the subject. The real question is the conflict of interest on your side with many belonging to AES and J_Js, Xenophanes continual refusal to post their legal names to their own posts.
And who has posted in this string who work for Stereophile? However, your side is rife with AES members, and AES is backed by companies so an obvious conflict of interest in this discussion. Which one of you would want to comment negatively concerning AES views and the companies who are financing/backing AES.
He wrote this on Page 25.
Well, you have tried every tatic to discredit Dr. Kunkur and his papers instead of waiting for his reply. Look at page 26 of this string to see Krab continuing to jab at Dr. Kunkur instead of waiting for Dr. Kunkur to respond. What you are doing is different than what you are stating.
By the way, where is all the peer reviews etc for J_Js work? Why have you not questioned his articles since his links have been presented in the past and his only peers appear to be AES which is backed by certain companies.
And why have you neatly sidestepped my comments posted earlier (and posted below), and the two examples I provided. Are you looking for the truth, or just pushing an agenda.
Why has not J_J presented his evidence to these national, mainstream organizations, third party by the way. In fact, where besides AES which is backed by certain companies has he posted his papers?
-----
By the way Terry, B&W as well as other companies are producing tweeters flat to 70-80khz. Thought you would want to know.
J_J:
As we can trivially see, there is content below 20kHz in a 5 microsecond pulse.
In fact, one can trivially tell you EXACTLY what the spectrum of a 5 perfect microsecond pulse is, please see the "sync" function, i.e. sin (w*f)/(w*f). In your case, given your assumed expertise, you can of course tell me the proper value for 'w', yes?
Now, this is an "interesting" function, since it is 0/0 at x=0 or at f=0 (or both).
What do you suppose the value of sin(x)/x is at zero? It is calculable, and easily shown by a simple theorem. Would you like to tell us that theorem?
Now, since in fact sin(x)/x is equal to '1' at x=0 (pending your recitiation of the well-known proof above, and as obviously visible as the attentuated, but obviously present pulse in your own plot, eh?), yes, there is energy below 20kHz.
Now let's assume the filter response for your 20kHz system is PERFECT. i.e. DC-20kHz = 1, 20kHz+=0, and that it is constant delay.
Ok, what's the TIME WAVEFORM for that look like?
Oh, guess what? It's sin( w * t) / (w *t). Imagine that. You've just discovered, experimentally, the "duality theorem". In any case, if you plot that out, you see the attenuated waveform just like you show. No, I'm hardly surprised.
Why is it attenuated? Because some of the original energy was beyond 20khz. Having removed the energy above 20kHz, the amplitude and energy of the pulse will be smaller.
SMALLER
Not zero. The energy under 20khz passes through the system, as it rather obviously should.
And you can trivially, with the SNR present in a standard 16/44 stream, detect the ONSET of that spread out pulse, after antiimage filtering, to 5 microseconds. And that spread-out pulse is exactly the content in your original pulse that is BELOW 20kHz.
Your own plot shows this, clearly and plainly. So why do you keep arguing about what is so trivial, obvious, and easy to demonstrate, AND that your own plot has demonstrated!?!?!?
And since I've never been "away" from two channels, again you lay a false claim at my feet.
But, for your information, given an absolute outside reference, yes, you can detect a 5 microsecond shift in a pulse in ONE channel. But of course that's never, EVER been the subject under discussion, despite your repeated misrepresentations and extractions of discussion from the context of the OP.
As your assertions are wrong in two substantive ways, one being that "AES... backed by certain companies" is nothing but a blathering conspiracy theory, and the other that I only have AES publications, it would appear that you are claiming expertise (i.e. claiming to know all of my publications, which are, after all, in the public record), and also claiming that they are all in the AES.
As they are not all in the AES, we have two choices. Either you've lied when you insinuate that you've done dilligence in looking at my publication list, or you've lied when you claimed they were all AES publications.
You choose.
Yes, oh antagonistic one, I know that there are such tweeters. I have some in my office, in fact about 5 of them, sitting in a circle around me. Not the brand YOU mention, but that's beside the point.
And there is a point to that. If you have something that maintains dispersion to 20kHz, and has internal resonance well above that, you don't get ANY trouble inside of 20kHz.
Which is a good thing.
And we already know you're a clown. You haven't a clue what good science is, that seems clear. But you add to the evidence by your mad data mining skilz. Example: citing the work of the late, unlamented PEAR, which was a laughingstock or embarrassment to real scientists...including all 700 at Princeton itself (PEAR was funded not by peer-reviewed grants, as is typical for real science, but by donations from gullible philanthropists, including one of the kookier Rockefellers).
Here's the mission statement of the site you found this 'evidence' on:
"The Global Oneness Commitment
The Global Oneness Commitment is an eight-year project with the goal of uniting people around the globe to mutual actions in order to not only save what we have, but to transform the planet thru an increase in spiritual awareness - a new consciousness creating a joyful home for all its inhabitants and sincere respect for all forms of life. The project is synchronised with the twin Venus Transits of 2004 and 2012. It starts with the first Venus transit of June 8th 2004 and ends with the second Transit June 6th 2012. The eight-year project is initiated by the Global Oneness Foundation based in Stockholm, Sweden, in association with the Times Foundation based in Delhi, India. "
and here's the 'evidence'
"In the laboratory of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at Princeton University
/USA, research on the topic "mind-machine-interaction" has been ongoing since the late 1970s. As far back as the late 80s, extensive studies proved that diodes with white noise might be used as an interface between man and machine. Since 1998, worldwide about 50 such diodes with white noise have been measuring not only the consciousness of individuals but also the global consciousness of mankind within a study called "Global Consciousness Project". The results have been published and indicate synchronized reaction of all diodes to incidents of worldwide interest such as the war in Iraq, Lady Diana�s funeral or the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York."
This earth-shaking finding seems to have remained obscure even now! Must be a conspiracy of those damned scientists.
Next, feel free to explain how artificial atoms improve the sound of home audio. </rolleyes> Bonus points if you can do so simply without parroting the grotesque nuttiness on the Machina Dynamica site.
Then feel free to explain why a 'self-refuting idea' that you (erroneously) claim DBT to be, is a common tool in scientific research.
Then feel free to ponder how you came to be such a malignant, hateful entity, 'Michael J. Frog'. Do you blame it all on pesky scientists and their stupid FACTS and things?
Anyone knows if one takes 2 channels and shifts one by 5us, it can be done. Even a severely challenged bandwidth component can do that. Imo, that is not what Dr. Kunkur is stating in his papers. Imo what the author was obviously stating was that if one is to distinquish 5us in each channel, 16/44 does not cut it. That is the question. Not your little 2 channel shifted by 5us test and claim that 16/44 is good enough. Give me a break.
And that is what I have been discussing for untold pages, one channel response. And you claim you did not understand that? So you claim you continually used 2 channels. (In his posts, showing his graph, no mention is made of 2 channels until bottom of page 10.)
What about between pages 3 and 10? I see no mention about 2 channels. If so please show post.
So while I am clearly discussing one channel performance, page after page, which is what is important and is being discussed, you are using two channel shifted by 5us for your arguement, and that 16/44 is ok for audio reproduction. Wow.
Who sponsors AES? Second, post other organization you have addressed. Show us some proof.
Right. You have 5 right in front of you on the desk
Very true. However, that can be somewhat accomplished, not to 70khz) in existing tweeters by other means. I take it you have not worked with tweeters, you just admire them?
Good, then you've agreed with me from day 1?
Um, sorry, that's a touch hard to accept, 'scuse me.
It's the most reasonable reading for what he wrote. "discern timing alterations" has to have a reference, after all.
I trust he's not suggesting that one can hear a substantial difference when both channels are delayed by 5 microseconds.
Now that would be an extraordinary claim indeed.
In any case, in any context that I've ever seen the term "resolution" refers to the delta of time you can actually resolve inside of a system, which is not the same as the shortest pulse the system can reproduce. Resolution and bandwidth are related, but there's that old pesky Shannon Bound theorem that comes between. (as opposed to the sampling theorem, which is part of the paper on the shannon bound for information).
Really, now? Prove that, why don't you? Oh, and no, they aren't all on my desk. They wouldn't fit, in their boxes with the rest of the drivers and such. Not even in a line.
Well, you're the one who argues about "sponsors AES" so why don't you tell US who "sponsers AES". Do tell.
As to my publications, you've made the claim that they are all AES papers. This indicates that you have in fact RESEARCHED the issue. If you have done so, you know that is not the fact.
So, YOU claim that all of my papers are in the AES. YOU prove it.
And the IEEE tutorial paper award, among other things, is going to make your job a teensy bit hard.
Not exactly buddy. Check page 2 again.
You said system, not per channel and consistently used 2 channel with shifts. It was I who posted the truth about the need per channel the whole string. Let's just say you finally agreed with me.
Hmmm.
Whatever ...
But you can also resolve a time differential in ONE channel if you have an external reference.
But whaaatever...
OMG!! I don't believe it!
We find out on the stereophile forum no less that there is a scientific formula for some audioiphile discussions...all revolving around manipulating the term WTF??!!??!!
As in WTF has small metal bowls got to do with taming bass, or tiny dots around the room helping the sound (I imagine, have not used the formula yet)
jj, yes I did see your earlier explanation of how quickly a 60khz signal is attenuated by the air itself (forget it hitting a piece of tissue paper), I thought I was asking something slightly different, the beaming from the tweeter itself (if any in the signal) in the living space. Anyone who has the slightest bit of toe in or out would be affected by that no? Then once emitted it is of course subject to the laws of physics you've already mentioned.
SAS, thanks for that re the tweeters. My question was a bit 'tongue in cheek', not completely mind. As I said, a lot of that stuff would be straight from the marketing department, as in the real world (leaving aside what is being argued here) there is no need for a tweeter to reproduce 70khz, hence it can only be the marketing department pushing it.
Having said that, (maybe pertinent to this thread..in the sense that *some* are being asked to provide proof of *their* measurements, yet other claims are automatically accepted) have you ever measured one of these tweeters to see if they are outputting 70 khz? What mic did you use? program?
I have measured the RAAL ribbon tweeters, I forget the published specs (40k??) yet clearly found they started rolling off at 17k (I think from memory...the point is that from the descriptions you tended to assume a flat even response to 40k, clearly not).
I mean you could argue that I have output from my computer speakers of 20 hz, yeah, but how many db down??
**the raals being a ribbon, well it could be that the mic was not perfectly centred hence it did miss the 40 khz signal, but even if so it just backs up my point about beaming**
Jan, it was a serious enquiry about your speakers/system. I really do believe that the basics of the system needs to be sorted. Or put it another way, it is a waste of time and money/energy to chase things down the food chain at the expense of more important things, applies to fields other than audio too!
And given your earlier comments about 'wanting to push the performance envelope' of audio-hence to you the possible importance of what is being discussed here-I would have thought that you'd agree that maximising your system is important too?
I mean (and I do not know obviously) if you ran say a single driver system, then 60k is just as unattainable to you as say 60 hz. And, just using that as an example, I don't know if that applies or not, I would argue that for a 'better' musical experience 60 hz should be aimed at first rather than 60k....would you not agree??
Once you have the 60 hz, or lower, then you can go for node free reproduction etc, hence the importance of measurements.
So, could you post at least your in room measurements? If you DO have all that sorted, then yeah go for the 60k signal, I'd be interested in how you do it so keep me posted yeah?
Of course, you did see the previous discussion on polar patterns, direct response, and indirect response, yes? No?
It's very hard to make a tweeter behave at that frequency.
My point about the atmosphere was that it's going to eat the signal even if it is radiated properly (and good luck with that).
And I hope all these guys have their hair cut above the ear
As to the sync function, well, the spectrum of a rectangular function came up, so what's the problem?
no problem jj, was making a joke using WTF as a basis, half the stuff I see aduiophiles arguing about (cable lifters etc etc) I say to myself, WTF? you know, as in sin*cosWTF/tan IIRC(whogivesashit?)squared
And most of the birds doing that sort of arguing would eschew real world solutions to their 20db hump at 80hz (if they were even aware of it that is, usually they would 'trust their ears'...only those who desire to remove music from the equation would use those horrible measurements)
forget the haircuts, it's the guys who listen to rap with their baseball caps on (back to front no less) that I fear would not hear the 70k signal!
Hi Terry,
According to B&W specs/graph, the diamond dome sinks approx 3db at 50khz and is flat again at 60khz, +3db at 65khz and peaks approx 12db at 70khz. I believe I inaccurately stated 70-80khz.
Some decades ago, time flies fast, I worked in that range, and above, a month or so doing some testing. You might be surprised what you find. I will leave it at that.
Hope this helps.
Steve
I think you and I have a very different view of the "musical experience".
As to the rest, I'm the regular here and you're the ... "guest".
You first. Then you could ask your HA friends for their information.
Oh, just to mention, my enquiry was also serious. My question about BB and his stay in Memphis still stands.
"P", what about Hooker?
What do you fellas know about music?
thanks sas
Hi Jan, can you expand on why you think we have a different idea of the musical experience? Not sure how you got that from my post??
Aaah, the guest? Prob because (sheer luck I assure you, cannot remember registering) my register date is far enough in the past that I can avoid the regular accusation used about 'new', but the number of posts is not enough yet?
Me first, does that mean you want me to post my in room response? Then you will post yours, yeah I can agree to that!!
Some of the 'non guests' regulars would feel getting you to post your graphs is an accomplishment judging from some of the earlier responses.
Is this turning into a music trivia session? I am afraid I have no idea of what he had for breakfast, or which guitar he used. Not my field of musical interest....and even if it was my filed of interest, is it important to the enjoyment of the music that I should know these things???
can you tell me what the reason was that frank black and co recorded surfa rosa? does it matter if you cannot, no. and it has no bearing on this discussion anyway
will have a look in my folders to see if I have kept an in room measurement, can't run a sweep right now as my drivers are out of the box whilst the new (seeexxxxy) ones are being completed.
found one measurement
at the listening position, both speakers running
Long term or short term measurement?
swept (sine?) signal using REW
I see that this late into the thread, and this one important and inescapable fact remains: the various sockpuppet (pseudo)scientists who came trolling in here from Hydrogen (who it appears must have a combined emotional IQ of 7 between them!), have behaved as far removed to real scientists as one could get. Being that the one who posts under the fake name "j_j", and the rest of the members of his Hydrogen Audio Travelling Minstrel Show, have not even read all of Dr. Kunchur's papers. Let alone the others that support his arguments. As many times as I have pointed this out to the fake-named "j-j", he and the rest of the comedians that make up the Hydrogen Audio X-Forum Bashing Revue, have deliberately avoided addressing this all-important point. Because they prefer to argue against short quotes that Arnold Krueger lifted from one of the studies! This way "j_j" et al. can always go and blame whoever pulled the quote for getting it wrong.
So, this thread can be summed up thusly: It is silly to take any of their dishonest, misleading and hostile debates seriously. Because they are engaging in what is commonly known as "arguing from ignorance". Hence the reason it appears the author of the papers does not wish to debate these clowns. No self-respecting real scientist would ever try to refute or "debunk" a paper he hasn't read. To a pseudoscientist though, pretending to be otherwise on the internet, not a problem!
These guys will swear they have succeeded at refuting an argument from three words quoted out of the researcher's paper.
BTW, Dr. Kunchur is by far not the only researcher to prove the importance of ultrasonics in digital sampling. In fact, since the release of the old 16-44 Red Book standard (which will often not resolve to 16 bits), and the advances in technology and research that has been done in over two decades since then, this is hardly a new concept, particularly to those who do active work in the area of digital research in audio engineering. I included a few supporting materials, but as I predicted, the j_j troll and his HA followers has refused to look at them as well, let alone try to disprove them. Which is telling. Very telling indeed.
Of course you do. By how many times I've pied you in the face. Here's some seltzer water to wash that off with... whoops! Who filled the bottle with vinegar? Oopsie!
(insert sfx: audience roars with laughter)
LOL! Says the troll who thinks Quantum Dots are a breakfast cereal and morphic fields were invented by Tinker Bell! You're still confusing your ignorance of science with science, my little Hydrogen stalker.
"j_j" wrote:
Why would you? You have never stated what your system entails. In fact, you have never even stated what your real name is, in any of your posts!
Winer wrote:
Ethan, stop fanning flames from the peanut gallery with your other troll buddies from Hydrogen. I have never gotten an honest answer from you on anything. I've caught you lying more times than I've caught you telling the truth. In fact, you're lying right now when you say you've tried asking me about my system. When did you do that, show me? A failure to do so will prove that you're the one being dishonest. And I'm responding to your display of dishonesty here, to make this point:
You were "curious" about Jan's system, but he refused to reveal it to you - which is his right. But you were "so curious", that against all rules of netiquette and honest behaviour, you posted his system on this forum, based on information you had received from someone in email. Which you did not and could not confirm was true. But since you have repeatedly proven to be without morals or ethics, it didn't bother you to do that, as honesty is of no consideration to you. Not content with just revealing what you believed was personal information about Jan's life on the forum, you then proceeded to ridicule him based on that 'information'; what you believed was his hifi system. Even that wasn't enough, for you actually posted an attack poll, complete with pictures of what you thought his system comprised of, in order to get the rest of the group to join you in attacking Jan's system. And even *that* wasn't enough, because you also did a probe on Jan's house via Google Earth. I guess you wanted to move on to ridiculing whatever else he had in his house.
So yes, you have "been there, done that"; when it comes to ridiculing people who reveal their systems to you. And now you're actually complaining about the fact that people might not want to reveal their systems to you, so you can post another attack poll and get the group to mock them over it? How low do you go?
So, I guess we can add 'sockpuppet' to the list of words MJF employs without really understanding.
If you have a good adc/dac setup, you might want to grab a copy of Octave and use an allpass sequence to capture just the direct response, and see what you get.
There's a paper (Johnston and Smirnov) in some recent AES on how to do things that way. Linkwitz has some good papers on the subject, too.
Hello to all,
I just obtained a response from Dr. Kunkur and as his wish, I am posting his entire said reply to all.
Note: I am dividing up some paragraphs simply so it is easier to read. Some find to many lines together makes it more difficult to read.
"Thank you for your query about my papers on auditory temporal (time) resolution in humans (posted on my web site:
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm)
and for forwarding the forum comments to me. I would like to respond to some of the assertions and comments that were presented. First of all, an internet forum is a dangerous place to obtain information -- instead one should go to an authentic original source such as a published scientific paper in a refereed journal.
On an internet forum, a writer can post completely arbitrary, unproven, and indeed totally wrong statements with no backing or oversight whatsoever. Normally this would be a laughing matter, except that sometimes people obtain their "education" through such forums and this can therefore cause further harm to the scientific understanding held by the general population, which is already in a national crisis.
In science, assertions must be properly backed up and verified. I don't know who made up this nonsense of dividing the sampling period by the vertical bits to obtain a temporal resolution. The bits give the shades of intensity (related to sound pressure level) that can be differentiated, whereas the sampling period gives the frequency at which the information about these levels is updated. They have no direct connection!
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.
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.
Unless a different interpretation of minimal temporal separation is taken, it is completely fallacious to assert that a CD can resolve less than 5 microseconds when its individual samples are separated by periods of 23 microseconds. (Note that it is true that small alterations in temporal profiles can be indirectly encoded through variations in adjacent levels and that this is certainly aided by having more bits; however, a true translation in time of a temporal feature can only take place in quantized sample periods.)
Just to give a clearer idea of how formal science and the (incredibly rigorous) scientific process is conducted, I thought I would explain what went into publishing the two above mentioned papers that have apparently generated controversy among lay readers (interestingly there has been no controversy whatsoever in all the professional circles, which include audiologists, otolaryngologists, acousticians, engineers, and physicists ).
An experiment has to be carefully thought out and then submitted as a proposal to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approved by them before it can even begin.
Then optimum equipment, methods, and a multitude of cross checks must be developed (my papers give some details to help appreciate what went in). It takes about half a year to conduct each sequence of controlled blind tests. Consent forms (legally approved and certified by the IRB) must be signed.
The results, analysis, and conclusions are then carefully considered and discussed with colleagues who are experts in their related inter-disciplinary fields; for this I went in person to various universities and research institutes and met with people in departments of physics, engineering, psychology, neuroscience, music, communications sciences, physiology, and materials science.
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. Only after everyone is satisfied with the accuracy of the results and all statements made in the manuscript, are the papers published in the journals.
The entire process took around 5 years from initial concept to refereed publications. (Note that an article in a conference proceeding does not go through the rigorous refereeing process of a formal journal. Essentially anything submitted there gets accepted for publication. Contents of books are also not rigorously refereed. When possible, reference should always be made to an original journal article.)
I would like to add some other observations:
(1) One should be wary of drawing conclusions based on an
Out of respect for the fellow, I'll attempt to take this offline.
I see nothing to indicate my initial reaction was in any fashion inaccurate.
As expected. The reason there has been no controversy with your study whatsoever in all the professional circles, is because the analysis has involved real scientists. Unlike what we have here: lay people who like to "play scientist" on an audio forum (none of whom have even read your entire studies!). These critics from Hydrogen Audio forum are not just lay people who like to pretend they are scientists qualified to refute your calibre of study, but what makes this what it is, is they have an agenda against what your study represents to them (which to put it simply, is anything related to audio that threatens their status quo). So even if this raucous group of pathological skeptics from the Hydrogen Audio Forum were qualified to discredit such a serious scientific study, and there is no question that they are not, in no way shape or form can these armchair critics do so in any kind of objective manner - nor have they ever been willing to. This has been clearly shown by their personal hostilities and thoroughly unscientific behaviour in this debate, along with the misleading content of their arguments. As I say, they haven't even been willing to read the studies completely, despite my having asked them to many times, preferring instead to argue against short quotes from it.
Thank you tremendously Dr. Kunchur, for taking time out of your busy schedule to clearing up the entire controversy over your paper, on this forum. And thank you Steve for resolving this debate for us, and the tremendous efforts you made in doing that.
Pages