charles@sunybcs.UUCP (Charles E. Pearson) (06/20/84)
Boy! You like to miss-read anything you get your eyes on.
After your massive blunder, I was having such fun watching you
continue the farce.... Now it is time to clear up some of
your self-generated problems.
1) I never specified the frequency that the square waves were
measured (?) at for my initial flame. The source was that
comic book called 'AUDIO' and their consistant mis-intreperation
of their tests. They are the ones who use the square wave test.
(Not I.) They are the ones who specify the frequency. (Not I.)
They are the ones who think it is correct and valid. (Not I.)
I view their test as an example of how CD implimentation
has failed us miserably. They view it as an example of how
perfect the CD is. The sinus-soidal properties of their square
waves is the perfect example of how the CD cannot re-produce a
signal properly (at any frequency from 0.01hz to 1000Khz).
Sample rate and resolution be dammed. The square wave of a
digital system must be flat or it doesn't work (yet). The sample
rate is another problem/question entirely. As for resolution, I
prefer the idea of 32+ bits/sample to allow for future improvement
instead of limiting the tech. to something questionable.
2) I never said that I could hear the difference between a cow
and a Boeing 747, much less the difference between a 20Khz
square and sine wave. I said that the people foisting an inferrior
example of a possibly supperior technology upon us have given us
the shaft. It needs a lot more work. At its present level of
quality, it should still be in the proverbial drawing board, or
possibly as a prototype, not in production.
3) I did say that I couldn't spell or tpye.
4) I do admit that digital tech. promises to be better. How many
years will it take to get it any where near its potential depends
upon howw any twerps accept their current LOW interpretation.
Charles E. Pearson
UUCP: {allegra, seismo}!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!charles
decvax!watmath!sunybcs!charles
ARPA & CSNET: charles.buffalo@rand-relay
Physical: University Computing Services
4250 Ridge Lea Road
room 28
SUNY Center at Buffalo
Amherst, NY 14226czp@houxa.UUCP (06/22/84)
<munch, munch> i can't resist any longer. charles, you are SUCH a schmuck. for the sake of those on the net who work with digital audio processing, and who have pointed out realities which you continuously refuse to acknowledge, would you please confine further infantile rantings about your version of digital audio to either the bit bucket, or as graffiti on the edges of the notebook you should be using to re-take (or is that just take) some good basic digital signal processing courses? and to those of you (hound!rfg et al) who have patiently explained to our ego-intellectual friend why he's missing a few points: it's been a pleasure reading some of your knowledgeable, factual submissions. i wish you all the best of luck in your digital audio endeavors. off to zurich to work in research with studer, chuck podaras dsp research division bell communications research, inc holmdel, gnu joizee ps: oh, charles: since you "prefer" 32+ bit conversion, would you please run right down to the hardware store, grab a few nuts and bolts, then defy a few physical laws and revolutionize analog ic design to create a few 32+ jobbies for us? i'd appreciate about a megahertz or so conversion rate: should get rid of lots of those nasties from the analog filters, and gosh! will those square waves be nice...
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (06/27/84)
>and to those of you (hound!rfg et al) who have patiently explained to our >ego-intellectual friend why he's missing a few points: it's been a pleasure >reading some of your knowledgeable, factual submissions. Oh, don't bother, Chuck. I've been pondering the remarks of our digiphobic friend and have come to some tentative hypotheses (pending further investigation). 1) The technical content of the articles posted is obviously confused. This leads me to conclude that this person is either flunking all his EE courses, or has never taken any EE courses. Since his spelling and grammar are about as competent as his electronics expertise, I'd expect the former. (That's one) 2) Our friend is playing gadfly just to see if he can get our collective goat. In this case, his misinformed remarks are deliberate, and have been offered with the intent of provoking the exact kind of discussion that has followed. What the hell is so important about square waves, anyway? Should this be the intent of the articles in question, the author has succeeded admirably. (That's another) 3) The author is actually a Soviet spy engaged in gathering information about digital signal processing, and is trying to get some one to blunder away trade secrets in a moment of exasperation. (That's yet another...OK, it's getting a bit deep, I know, I know) In any case, I suggest that further discussion on this topic or any further offerings from our irritating friend be managed with a little less seriousness...If hypothesis (1) is correct, it's pointless to argue with a moron who's sure of himself. If hypothesis (2) is correct (as I suspect), he's had his little laugh at our expense already. And if he's a Russki, let's start feeding him information on plain 'ol analog recording techniques. Maybe then Melodiya will start producing some decent records. -- Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihu1g!fish