Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]  (Read 33887 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #75 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Maybe not said explicitly, but there by implication.

LOL, I thought of another tactic I've seen lately, though this could not have been on a list 100 years ago:

When you're arguing with someone and others chime in to support the other guy, insist that all the others are sock-puppets. IOW, claim they're all the same guy. I've seen that a lot lately in three different forums. And from the tone and style of the writing, the person claiming everyone else is a sock-puppet is in fact one himself since his "friends" all say the same thing.

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

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #76 –
Quote from: John Eppstein on
a few posts back you said the Delta card had noise 90dB down below 2K. So let's take 20 iterations of that.

Wow John, you really don't understand this stuff very well. As David explained, noise doesn't add like that.

John, I say this with as much respect as possible for another human being who obviously means well. You really need to learn the basics before you 1) engage in technical discussion, and 2) express such strong opinions.

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

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #77 –
Quote from: Canar on
I am not particularly happy with all the ad hominem in this thread, but it is being employed by users that I tend to have a degree of respect for...

I try to avoid insults too, but at some point, when someone repeatedly claims opinions that are simple to disprove (like how noise adds), it's not unreasonable to tell them they're not qualified to be in this discussion. That is, the truth is always a valid defense.

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

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #78 –
You just risk being dismissed as a troll.  It is clear that neither dwoz or John Eppstein have any formal training in engineering (that is to say real engineering, not learning how to twiddle knobs for two years at a trade school).  They are really out of their league in this discussion.  I'm not trying to come off like a snob here, as there are plenty of others who understand design and development quite well who also don't posses degrees in Electrical Engineering, but unlike these two, you can tell based on what they say.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #79 –
Quote from: greynol on
You just risk being dismissed as a troll.  It is clear that neither dwoz or John Eppstein have any formal training in engineering (that is to say real engineering, not learning how to twiddle knobs for two years at a trade school).  They are really out of their league in this discussion.  I'm not trying to come off like a snob here, as there are plenty of others who understand design and development quite well who also don't posses degrees in Electrical Engineering, but unlike these two, you can tell based on what they say.


They do not, but they are very good at making good recordings.

I would be very happy if we could explain to them the requirements for real testing, and they might have something to contribute in the area of understanding euphony.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #80 –
In the meantime they are largely responsible for bloating this thread into a near-state of uselessness.  Perhaps this was their intention, I don't know.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #81 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
they are very good at making good recordings.

How do we know that? A quick Google search shows no recording credits for JE. And AFAIK nobody here even knows who dwoz is, let alone has heard anything he's recorded or mixed.

Does this mean JJ just committed a TOS #8 violation?

Speaking of which, where's dwoz anyway?

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

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #82 –
Quote from: greynol on
they are largely responsible for bloating this thread into a near-state of uselessness.  Perhaps this was their intention, I don't know.

I assume that's not their intent, and that they really do believe they have science and logic on their side. However, the net result is as you describe. There's much more of this on Gearslutz, where a few regulars chime in constantly (dozens of posts per day) just to say "You're wrong" with no further explanation. I see that as a huge problem, because such posts add nothing of substance, and just irritate lurkers who are trying to learn.

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

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #83 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
Hmmm... Interesting. As I've mentioned before I was the service and test technician for the audio department of Bill Graham's FM Productions.


God help Bill Graham!

I'm serious.

Quote
My test bench included a Sound Technology distortion analyzer and scopes, signal generators, a various other test equipment from Tektronix, Hewlett-Packard (now Agilent), Fluke, and others, which I used on a daily basis in carrying out my duties analyzing, evaluating, repairing, and modifying professional audio equipment. This was only one of a number of jobs I've held servicing audio equipment. So I'd say that I have at least a modicum of working knowledge of the use of audio test gear.


Fancy toys and an impressive sounding title doesn't prove anything at all.

I own (that is in legally own - not my boss's) an Audio Precision test set that I take great pleasure in not using because I can get faster, more sensitive results out of a PC with M-Audio interface and some freeware.

I also personally own any number of pieces from HP and Fluke which I do actually use. ;-)

I've been professionally engaged to  design, install, operate and  maintain everything from consumer audio gear to military radar systems that spread over a quarter mile square, to computer systems that filled very large computer centers that were powered from mulitple substations, to SR systems involving dozens of mics, to automotive systems, to I guess you name it. Then there is my life long audio hobby. I truely was designing and building my own audio amps in 1960.

Your comments about recapping and biasing pretty well tell a story - someone who misunderstands stuff he reads, and apparently did not use all that fancy gear to a reasonable extent.

Ever put the caps you pull on a bridge?

Ever do a thorough set of bench tests before and after? 

Seems like not so much.


Yes, here in San Francisco we have a number of well known bridges....

Would you like to buy one?

Oh, you meant a Wheatstone bridge!

Yes, I have.

I don't own my own analyzer now, I do have a number of scopes (Tektronix, Leader, etc), signal generators(H-P, Leader,etc.), and meters (Fluke, etc.), including a lovely old H-P VTVM. I used to own a lot more test gear, back when I was actively doing tech work.

It's interesting that you prefer your M-Audio card and software to a proper test set, considering that the M-Audio card has zero response over 20K. Don't you think that the lack of a proper wideband analyzer might possibly be skewing your results a bit?

BTW, as I mentioned in an earlier post that appears to have been deleted, while I was at FM one of my jobs was evaluating consoles - the paperwork generated on EACH CHANNEL was more extensive than the spec sheets provided by prosumer manufacturers on an entire console.

I also did product evaluations on other gear submitted to us for consideration. Found a lot of stuff that didn't meet spec. Blew up a fair amount of prosumer and consumer-pretending-to-be-professional gear that wasn't properly designed. Learned why some gear costs several times as much as other gear with the same printed spec.

As  I said, good luck with your new amp........ who knows, maybe you'll get lucky, some people do.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #84 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Also, the usual audiophool pubs will go on and on about how it has "chocolate-like" highs.


No, No, No! The highs of this chip are like creamy butterscotch!

With a hint of caramel......

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #85 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
What do sine waves have to do with real world audio signals?

Everything. Unless of course you think Fourier was wrong. Hint: He wasn't.

--Ethan


No. Fourier said that any audio signal can be analyzed as a series of sine waves. But that's an analysis, a model. It isn't the thing itself.

Yes, you can reconstruct the original waves from the series of sine waves if you have enough of them - but then what you have isn't really the sine waves any more, it's a complex waves.

It's like if you have a wooden box. The wooden box can be used to hold something, say, cookies.

The wooden box can be analyzed as a group of boards. But the separate boards aren't the box, they're a bunch of boards and they won't hold your cookies.

The analysis is not the thing itself. The deconstruction is not the thing itself. The properties of the whole are different from/greater than the properties of the parts.

Fourier was not wrong. But a lot of people think he said something that was not exactly what he said.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #86 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
a few posts back you said the Delta card had noise 90dB down below 2K. So let's take 20 iterations of that.

Wow John, you really don't understand this stuff very well. As David explained, noise doesn't add like that.

John, I say this with as much respect as possible for another human being who obviously means well. You really need to learn the basics before you 1) engage in technical discussion, and 2) express such strong opinions.

--Ethan

I shouldn't try and think logically when I'm up at 4 AM, groggy with insomnia, that's for sure.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #87 –
Quote from: aclo on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
What do sine waves have to do with real world audio signals?

Everything. Unless of course you think Fourier was wrong. Hint: He wasn't.

--Ethan


No. Fourier said that any audio signal can be analyzed as a series of sine waves. But that's an analysis, a model. It isn't the thing itself.

Yes, you can reconstruct the original waves from the series of sine waves if you have enough of them - but then what you have isn't really the sine waves any more, it's a complex waves.

It's like if you have a wooden box. The wooden box can be used to hold something, say, cookies.

The wooden box can be analyzed as a group of boards. But the separate boards aren't the box, they're a bunch of boards and they won't hold your cookies.

The analysis is not the thing itself. The deconstruction is not the thing itself. The properties of the whole are different from/greater than the properties of the parts.

Fourier was not wrong. But a lot of people think he said something that was not exactly what he said.


I'm sorry but that is a load of nonsense (I am being literal here, not attacking you). The fourier transform of something (eg an audio signal) is exactly equivalent to the signal. And your analogy is completely irrelevant.

If you wish to argue that looking at the response of a system to a sine wave is not enough, there's plenty of other places to look. The most obvious being that if the processing done to the signal isn't linear then the output of the system for a single sinewave input "at each frequency" isn't enough to be able to predict its behaviour for a superposition of many of these sines (ie for any signal).

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #88 –
Quote from: Woodinville on
Quote from: greynol on
You just risk being dismissed as a troll.  It is clear that neither dwoz or John Eppstein have any formal training in engineering (that is to say real engineering, not learning how to twiddle knobs for two years at a trade school).  They are really out of their league in this discussion.  I'm not trying to come off like a snob here, as there are plenty of others who understand design and development quite well who also don't posses degrees in Electrical Engineering, but unlike these two, you can tell based on what they say.


They do not, but they are very good at making good recordings.

I would be very happy if we could explain to them the requirements for real testing, and they might have something to contribute in the area of understanding euphony.


Actually I have much more experience on the live side although I do have a fair amount of studio experience, some of it major (as an assistant).  My two credits as producer for records that were commercially released you will not find online. I have a considerable amount of time in the maintainance and evaluation of equipment, although I lack formal training.

I have a strong ongoing interest in the science of audio, but I got past the pedantic trap of assuming that what was written in the "authoritative" texts was necessarily gospel after living through a couple of iterations of having the current "truth" change as new techniques and theories come to the fore.

I find J_J's interest in trying to discover more about all aspects of this to be highly interesting and refreshing - it seems that while a lot of people want to use him as an authority nobody is actually paying attention to everything he's saying.

Human perception is a field in which a lot of groundbreaking work is being done now - it seems that a lot of the previous conventional wisdom concerning how our perceptual processing operates is wrong, or at least sadly incomplete. In audio, the phenomena that J_J refers to as "euphony" have been research very little and the appears to be a loot of resistance to actually learning anything from the traditionalist "objectivist" circles.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #89 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Woodinville on
they are very good at making good recordings.

How do we know that? A quick Google search shows no recording credits for JE. And AFAIK nobody here even knows who dwoz is, let alone has heard anything he's recorded or mixed.

Does this mean JJ just committed a TOS #8 violation?

Speaking of which, where's dwoz anyway?

--Ethan



DWOZ was unfortunately very busy the last two days, saying goodbye to his grandmother, who has now left this mortal coil.  He didn't have time to come in here and respond to the vicious and ignorant attacks on his person by tiny insignificant people.

Ethan, you didn't seem to have any trouble figuring out who I was when you were PMing me to get your business competitors banned from the Womb, back in 2007.  You didn't seem to have any trouble figuring out who I was when I was admin to the music project you participated in at the Womb, where I PERSONALLY advocated toward giving you the chance to work with an "A" list production team.

Go to thewombforums.com and check out the "CAPE radio" link at the top of the page.  That's music produced by the program that I admin and co-produce.  There's lots of me in there, recording, playing, singing, writing.

shall I post the private emails you sent me back in 2007?

anonymous, my ass.

but, hey, enjoy!

by the way, is it me, or is the hands-down most egregious and flagrant violator of the TOS in this place, super-moderator greynol?

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #90 –
Quote from: greynol on
In the meantime they are largely responsible for bloating this thread into a near-state of uselessness.  Perhaps this was their intention, I don't know.


Considering that a) this post is a TOS violation on it's face...and b) it is baseless, and c) it is libel, and d) it's simply not true...I would appreciate an apology.

I won't receive one, but so what.  I'm a parent.  I'm USED to disappointment.

I would be happy to go head-to-head with you in anything but football.  Unless I get to be running back.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #91 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
What do sine waves have to do with real world audio signals?

Everything. Unless of course you think Fourier was wrong. Hint: He wasn't.

--Ethan


No. Fourier said that any audio signal can be analyzed as a series of sine waves. But that's an analysis, a model. It isn't the thing itself.


What you don't seem to understand John is that the Fourier transform has a perfect inverse. The inverse transforms what you called an analysis back into the origional wave.

The Fourier transform looses no information no matter which direction the data goes. What you call an analysis  just transfoms the signal into an alternative form of the identical same data, 100.0000...% of it.

Quote
Yes, you can reconstruct the original waves from the series of sine waves if you have enough of them - but then what you have isn't really the sine waves any more, it's a complex waves.


Wrong again, The inverse transform reconstructs the identical origional wave. 

This basic priniciple can be used to create digital equalizers.  The input signal is transformed into a table of amplitudes and phase angles. You can adjust the ampludes and phrase angles as you wish. Adjusting the amplitudes is like a adjusting slider on a virtual graphic equalizer, orly the number of virtual sliders on the virtual graphic equalizer can be exceedingly large, so very fine adjustments are easy to make.  The table of revised amplitudes and phase angles is then transformed back into the original signal with the desired changes. Phase can be adjusted in a similar manner.  I have several of these tools, and I've been using them for years. They work very nicely, thank you!  It is a common feature of the better DAW  software.

If you perform forward and reverse transformations without any changes to the transformed data, the resulting wave looks and sounds exactly like the origional.

Therefore the coefficients of the sine and consine waves that the fourier transform creates are exact and reprsentative. Every real world wave can be transformed into an exactly representative colleciton of sine and cosine waves.

Furthermore, the Fourier transform is not a unique kind of thing, and audio data can be transformed by other means into other alternative forms. And back.


wrong again.  *sigh*.  A Fourier Transform in a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.  Therefore, by definition, it loses data if applied in a bandwidth-limited system.  That doesn't impinge on it's usefulness, but it disqualifies your statement.  That is, if you're talking about comparing the original voltage from the mic, to the digital conversion in 44.1

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #92 –
Quote from: dwoz on
wrong again.  *sigh*.  A Fourier Transform in a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.  Therefore, by definition, it loses data if applied in a bandwidth-limited system.  That doesn't impinge on it's usefulness, but it disqualifies your statement.  That is, if you're talking about comparing the original voltage from the mic, to the digital conversion in 44.1


what this should say is that a fourier transform of a full bandwidth signal represented within a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.
 

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #93 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: John Eppstein on
What do sine waves have to do with real world audio signals?

Everything. Unless of course you think Fourier was wrong. Hint: He wasn't.

--Ethan


No. Fourier said that any audio signal can be analyzed as a series of sine waves. But that's an analysis, a model. It isn't the thing itself.


What you don't seem to understand John is that the Fourier transform has a perfect inverse. The inverse transforms what you called an analysis back into the origional wave.

The Fourier transform looses no information no matter which direction the data goes. What you call an analysis  just transfoms the signal into an alternative form of the identical same data, 100.0000...% of it.

Quote
Yes, you can reconstruct the original waves from the series of sine waves if you have enough of them - but then what you have isn't really the sine waves any more, it's a complex waves.


Wrong again, The inverse transform reconstructs the identical origional wave. 

This basic priniciple can be used to create digital equalizers.  The input signal is transformed into a table of amplitudes and phase angles. You can adjust the ampludes and phrase angles as you wish. Adjusting the amplitudes is like a adjusting slider on a virtual graphic equalizer, orly the number of virtual sliders on the virtual graphic equalizer can be exceedingly large, so very fine adjustments are easy to make.  The table of revised amplitudes and phase angles is then transformed back into the original signal with the desired changes. Phase can be adjusted in a similar manner.  I have several of these tools, and I've been using them for years. They work very nicely, thank you!  It is a common feature of the better DAW  software.

If you perform forward and reverse transformations without any changes to the transformed data, the resulting wave looks and sounds exactly like the origional.

Therefore the coefficients of the sine and consine waves that the fourier transform creates are exact and reprsentative. Every real world wave can be transformed into an exactly representative colleciton of sine and cosine waves.

Furthermore, the Fourier transform is not a unique kind of thing, and audio data can be transformed by other means into other alternative forms. And back.

When you take a wooden box apart into a pile of boards it's a pile of boards. When you reassemble it into a box it's a box again. But a box is not a pile of boards and a pile of boards is not a box. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

You can take a Bach Fugue and analyze it into a progression of chords. You can analyze those chords into a bunch of notes. Yet the fugue is something more than the notes and the pile of individual notes is not music.

Yes, you can take things apart and put them back together. That proves - that you can take things apart and put them back together.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #94 –
great, let's have a look. the explanation on dither and others is very interesting.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #95 –
Dear Hydrogenaudio regulars,

I think you are gravely mistaken about the intentions of some of the posters you are suspecting to be "trolls".

Greynol, I'm floored about the way you are handling your moderation duties as you seem to be direspecting the very guidelines of your own forum. Furthermore, you seem to put the guilt on the head of the non-regulars instead of actually conducting the debate into something meaningful.

Someone has said that nobody seems to care about what JJ tried to say, and I think this is very true. And I notice that a gentle and enlightning discussion is taking place in my own forum with JJ about the same subject and above all, with people that may have not any engineering skills (rest assured that we do have engineers posting there too), but do have professional experience in recording and mixing.

I deeply respect JJ for that, as I respect any scientist that takes the time to try to understand what musician/audio engineer like myself is hearing, would he be subject to bias or not, and what motivates his choices in the working tools and methodology.

The key word is keeping an open mind and build a bridge between users and designers/tech. Something you clearly don't seem to build yet.

And for Chrissake: stop putting professional audio recordists in the same basket as audiophiles, this is getting silly. I can assure that very few of us are buying stuff based on hype or because they are insanely over priced.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules here as my purpose was indeed positive and peacefull.

I just noticed I have been allowed to post again, so I took the opportunity to state my mind in that regard. But rest assured that if you consider this board to be a private electrical engineer club, I won't take anymore of your time nor that I would waste anymore of mine.

Regarding my banning, I am deeply sorry if I broke any of your rules or offended anyone.

Peace

malice

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #96 –
Quote from: dwoz on
Quote from: dwoz on
wrong again.  *sigh*.  A Fourier Transform in a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.  Therefore, by definition, it loses data if applied in a bandwidth-limited system.  That doesn't impinge on it's usefulness, but it disqualifies your statement.  That is, if you're talking about comparing the original voltage from the mic, to the digital conversion in 44.1


what this should say is that a fourier transform of a full bandwidth signal represented within a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.


Isn't it embarrassing to accuse someone of being "wrong again" and getting it wrong yourself two times in a row? The act of bandwidth limiting looses (in the best case inaudible) information, not the application of fourier transformation afterwards (then usually DFT). It is 100% reversible.

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #97 –
dwoz and John's recent posts are distracting from the point. Again.
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Woodinville on
they are very good at making good recordings.

How do we know that? A quick Google search shows no recording credits for JE. And AFAIK nobody here even knows who dwoz is, let alone has heard anything he's recorded or mixed.

Well mixerman and malice are very good at making recordings. Unfortunately they'd rather win an argument than clearly explain their point of view or attempt to learn something new. Mixerman's stated intent is to annoy "the tragically uninformed". It's impossible to learn or to educate from such a position. I for one am very interested in their views, if only they could be expressed civilly.

Quote from: Woodinville on
I would be very happy if we could explain to them the requirements for real testing, and they might have something to contribute in the area of understanding euphony.

I would be very happy to learn from this!

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #98 –
Quote from: Ethan Winer on
Quote from: Woodinville on
they are very good at making good recordings.

How do we know that? A quick Google search shows no recording credits for JE. And AFAIK nobody here even knows who dwoz is, let alone has heard anything he's recorded or mixed.

Does this mean JJ just committed a TOS #8 violation?

Speaking of which, where's dwoz anyway?

--Ethan


As I have stated before, I am no-one of any consequence to this audience.

Perhaps I should supply proof that Ethan has known me since at least 2007, and had extensive interactions with me?

[TOS #2, #5, #8, cluelessness and their responses]

Reply #99 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: dwoz on
Quote from: dwoz on
wrong again.  *sigh*.  A Fourier Transform in a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.  Therefore, by definition, it loses data if applied in a bandwidth-limited system.  That doesn't impinge on it's usefulness, but it disqualifies your statement.  That is, if you're talking about comparing the original voltage from the mic, to the digital conversion in 44.1


what this should say is that a fourier transform of a full bandwidth signal represented within a bandwidth limited system is an approximation.


Isn't it embarrassing to accuse someone of being "wrong again" and getting it wrong yourself two times in a row? The act of bandwidth limiting looses (in the best case inaudible) information, not the application of fourier transformation afterwards (then usually DFT). It is 100% reversible.


Either something IS, or it ISN'T.  audibility has nothing to do with it.  The reverse of the transform will only reproduce the bandwidth-limited signal.  Garbage in, garbage out.