Skip to main content

Topic: Interesting Papers re temporal resolution (Read 79849 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Woodinville
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #100
It is interesting to note that now the same people at stereophile are ragging on Sean Olive. First a guy claimed that Sean's blog was sending out viruses, and that got squashed, now he's claiming that Sean doesn't know how to run a listening test.

This is the same person who alleges I don't know what an impulse response is, doesn't know the difference between an impulse response and signal detection, and who regards my speaking on a panel with Ethan Winer as "travelling 6000 miles to aid a competitor".



I presume this is the Stereophile forum, not the ragazine. I've stopped paying much attention to what happens there, because it really doesn't seem to matter a lot in the real world.



This is true, they've basically allowed the absolutely crazy and/or willfully dissembling types to drive everyone with much sense right off the board. The only one I know they banned was Ethan, and they banned one of the worse crazies along with him, but somebody who writes in the style of the now-missing Alan Derridia is not much loss in my book.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #101
It is interesting to note that now the same people at stereophile are ragging on Sean Olive. First a guy claimed that Sean's blog was sending out viruses, and that got squashed, now he's claiming that Sean doesn't know how to run a listening test.

This is the same person who alleges I don't know what an impulse response is, doesn't know the difference between an impulse response and signal detection, and who regards my speaking on a panel with Ethan Winer as "travelling 6000 miles to aid a competitor".



I presume this is the Stereophile forum, not the ragazine. I've stopped paying much attention to what happens there, because it really doesn't seem to matter a lot in the real world.



This is true, they've basically allowed the absolutely crazy and/or willfully dissembling types to drive everyone with much sense right off the board. The only one I know they banned was Ethan, and they banned one of the worse crazies along with him, but somebody who writes in the style of the now-missing Alan Derridia is not much loss in my book.


Tit-for-tat paired banning seems be the rage. I think that happened to me at the Womb. I made only 2 fairly innocent posts over and was banned for life with no explanation about the same time one of theirs was being moderated over here.

Of course, these conferences are usually bannning someone who posts under an alias, along with someone like Ethan who posts only under his legal name. The anonymous poster is back the next day under a new alias and that is that.

I don't think that either forum is about any basic search for truth.

I've got more important projects languishing for the time to complete them...

  • Axon
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Members (Donating)
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #102
I've had the good fortune (or timid personality depending on how you look at things) to avoid getting banned anywhere.

As long as only audiophiles give a hoot about the Stereophile forums, I'm not sure I can really care about the constant skullduggery I hear emanating from there. I mean, if it had as much cachet as Head-Fi does for headphones - and I have repeatedly referred people to Head-Fi to research headphone purchases - or the less crazy vinyl sites, I'd care a lot more. But that forum just doesn't have any rep whatsoever AFAIK. There isn't a whole lot of difference between "not criticized by anybody" and "criticized but only by crazies".

Now, that is in stark contrast to the original topic (the Kunchur papers) and those are, for the same reasons, a much bigger deal.

Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #103
these conferences are usually banning someone who posts under an alias, along with someone like Ethan who posts only under his legal name. The anonymous poster is back the next day under a new alias and that is that.

Indeed. The Frog is back under a new name. Advising the authorities had no effect, because apparently it's only me they needed to get out of their forum.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

  • Woodinville
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #104
these conferences are usually banning someone who posts under an alias, along with someone like Ethan who posts only under his legal name. The anonymous poster is back the next day under a new alias and that is that.

Indeed. The Frog is back under a new name. Advising the authorities had no effect, because apparently it's only me they needed to get out of their forum.

--Ethan


I thought so too, but seems more prone to arguing woowoo science and less prone to ad-homs... A bit, at least.

But, well, nothing I can say would be anything but disparaging to the new arrival, so say nothing substantitive I shall.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #105
we don't have to re-read all all of the time?
Further, there already is something interesting in an earlier
version of the FAQ document that is missing in the present one, if I remember
correctly.

It had to do with the time accuracy of 44.1kHz sampled systems ;-)




I wouldn't speculate. Don't speak such things unless you know them to be factual..that's how rumors get started, you know.

and no, he isn't updating his FAQ ie changing his answers... he is updating IE ACCOMMODATING NEW QUESTIONS THAT HE RECEIVES AFTER THE OLD FAQ WAS PUBLISHED>...



Apparently he's not doing either.

http://www.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm

Quote
FAQs (this document answers FAQs, and provides some tutorial information for the above papers), M. N. Kunchur, web article (last updated July 15, 2009).



Cursory glance around the Net suggests that 'hi rez' proponents already consider his work as 'proof' that Redbook rate sampling is both intrinsically audible and degradative to sound. 


His webpage is rather amusing.  As one of his  'publications' he links to a .pdf of a photo of a page from a textbook that cites (uncritically, and as it happens incorrectly) his 2008 paper's claim about temporal resolution of human hearing.
  • Last Edit: 16 May, 2013, 06:23:35 PM by krabapple

  • ExUser
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Read-only
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #106
Now that's an ancient thread bump I can approve of, krabapple!

Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #107
I recently revisited Monty's excellent recent video, and noticed that he debunks Kunchur soundly using a very clear example with no math:

Monty Montgomery explains digital audio

That part starts near the end at around 21:55.

--Ethan
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

  • markanini
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #108
That video could clear up so many misconceptions newbies have.
  • Last Edit: 19 May, 2013, 03:15:56 PM by markanini

  • Woodinville
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #109
It's really very simple to disprove such claims. All one has to do is sample a 20kHz sine wave (with no dithering to make things clearer to the uninformed with two phases 5 degrees apart.

Measure the difference in the samples. Oops, there is a sine wave encoded in that difference, just like you'd expect.

That is absolute, concrete evidence that Kuncher, Fraboni, and a bunch of other people talking about the "dirty little secret of digital audio" are utterly full of cow patties.

Of course, even the IEEE published an article of Fraboni's in which he made that claim about the "dirty little secret". His claim, of course, is utterly false, and the Spectrum publishing that bit of quackery is just an astonishing violation of the IEEE's own ethical code.

They were pressured by a variety of people to retract that, and blew it off completely, claiming it was a "controversy".

-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

  • honestguv
  • [*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #110
Apparently he's not doing either.

http://www.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/Acoustics-papers.htm

I was interested to see how he would handled the position he had put himself in. I cannot believe he did not look up the basics of sampling after the criticism he received which makes the 2010 AES presentation interesting. He hasn't kept his head down completely. Has anyone looked closely enough at the slides to determine how much of the original nonsense is retained?

Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #111
are utterly full of cow patties.


Oh JJ, you're too kind.
I believe in Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method

  • Woodinville
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution
Reply #112
are utterly full of cow patties.


Oh JJ, you're too kind.

Should I have said "udderly full of cow patties"?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston