I had another 20 to carry my girlfriend's books.

A girlfriend -- really? Fascinating!

 

A girlfriend -- really? Fascinating!

You're right. I meant girlfriends'.

 

I had another 20 to carry my girlfriend's books.

Well Bob my name's not really Patrick Malarkey, I use a fake name too.

 

Well Bob my name's not really Patrick Malarkey, I use a fake name too.

What? You didn't win the prize?

 

What? You didn't win the prize?
View attachment 271097

Well it's good to see somebody thinks that name is cute too

 

OK, I was going to stop participating here but I have one more thing to say.

@PatrickMalarkey I would like to apologize for being so abrupt in my initial response to you and the follow up. It really feels like you are trolling, that is, saying controversial things to stir people up and get attention. Maybe you are, maybe not. But for the moment let‘s assume you are not.

Many of the details of your first post are counterfactual, for example, the specifications in The Red Book which was the standards document definition the Compact Disc includes this:



It was 16 bits at 44.1KHz from the very beginning.

I am not sure where you get the idea the 15KHz is vulnerable to some sort of distortion when sampled at 44.1KHz, it isn’t. at 15KHz there will be almost 3 samples for every complete cycle of the waveform. It is not possible to sample only a node or antinode. There is nothing special about the 15KHz frequency.

A quick test with a CD and a spectrum analyzer would show there is nothing strange happening ij that range. And, if your contention is that you—or anyone—-could detect the dropout of a single cycle in a 15KHz waveform, that is frankly absurd.

One if the reasons that you encounter so much trouble here is that you treat the relationship between psychics and humans as if there was a magical component that can’t be accounted for in the very refined, exhaustively tested theories and laws that are used to successfully engineer the very technology you are claiming has ”gaps” or lack some “thing” that you can’t characterize but insist is very important.

Being contrarian doesn’t make you right. Sometimes a contrarian view of established science turns out to be correct but the overwhelming majority of the time is turns out to be very wrong. Even more so when it comes to the science behind mature technology because it has to—and does—work.

So your posts here are very much like posting flat earth theories in a forum for earth scientists or GPS engineers—it feels like an insult. You clearly don’t have a background in the things you make baseless claims about. You don‘t start from a description that comports with what we know to be true—you start with counterfactual statements.

Until you can support your strange claims with facts that can be verified and a theory that logically incorporates them, this is going to happen every time. You show no interest in learning how things are done and understood now, just on what you would like to be true. So, I am going to assume you are not trolling though that feels wrong, and I am going to refrain from interacting with posts you make that have this sort of content.

But, if you want to learn; if you post things as questions to the much more informed group you are now telling off—I would be willing to talk to you about things. You need to introspect and try to imagine how foolish you look to a group of experts in an area where you are a presumptuous neophyte. I don’t say this to belittle you. Consider it an appeal to find a way to reform so you can stay and participate here, and learn rather than pontificate from the wellspring of ignoramce.

I have the idea you are probably a simpatico guy in person, but here you mare yourself very unwanted. Please consider it.

 

OK, I was going to stop participating here but I have one more thing to say.

@PatrickMalarkey I would like to apologize for being so abrupt in my initial response to you and the follow up. It really feels like you are trolling, that is, saying controversial things to stir people up and get attention. Maybe you are, maybe not. But for the moment let‘s assume you are not.

Many of the details of your first post are counterfactual, for example, the specifications in The Red Book which was the standards document definition the Compact Disc includes this:

View attachment 271096

It was 16 bits at 44.1KHz from the very beginning.

I am not sure where you get the idea the 15KHz is vulnerable to some sort of distortion when sampled at 44.1KHz, it isn’t. at 15KHz there will be almost 3 samples for every complete cycle of the waveform. It is not possible to sample only a node or antinode. There is nothing special about the 15KHz frequency.

A quick test with a CD and a spectrum analyzer would show there is nothing strange happening ij that range. And, if your contention is that you—or anyone—-could detect the dropout of a single cycle in a 15KHz waveform, that is frankly absurd.

One if the reasons that you encounter so much trouble here is that you treat the relationship between psychics and humans as if there was a magical component that can’t be accounted for in the very refined, exhaustively tested theories and laws that are used to successfully engineer the very technology you are claiming has ”gaps” or lack some “thing” that you can’t characterize but insist is very important.

Being contrarian doesn’t make you right. Sometimes a contrarian view of established science turns out to be correct but the overwhelming majority of the time is turns out to be very wrong. Even more so when it comes to the science behind mature technology because it has to—and does—work.

So your posts here are very much like posting flat earth theories in a forum for earth scientists or GPS engineers—it feels like an insult. You clearly don’t have a background in the things you make baseless claims about. You don‘t start from a description that comports with what we know to be true—you start with counterfactual statements.

Until you can support your strange claims with facts that can be verified and a theory that logically incorporates them, this is going to happen every time. You show no interest in learning how things are done and understood now, just on what you would like to be true. So, I am going to assume you are not trolling though that feels wrong, and I am going to refrain from interacting with posts you make that have this sort of content.

But, if you want to learn; if you post things as questions to the much more informed group you are now telling off—I would be willing to talk to you about things. You need to introspect and try to imagine how foolish you look to a group of experts in an area where you are a presumptuous neophyte. I don’t say this to belittle you. Consider it an appeal to find a way to reform so you can stay and participate here, and learn rather than pontificate from the wellspring of ignoramce.

I have the idea you are probably a simpatico guy in person, but here you mare yourself very unwanted. Please consider it.

That's a lot of words for, "Let's see you pass an A-B test".

 

192Khz. or 384Khz. are both adequate for "near as necessary" lossless sampling and DAC, agreed Sir. Those "gaps" of mine are based on announced, 1980 news being that 100% of up to 20Khz. audio was captured with a sampling rate of 40Khz. And that is incorrect, "mid-wave" signal in 15Khz. audio is sometimes missed by sampling at 40Khz or 44Khz. (By sampling at a peak or valley in the audio signal).

No.

That is not how sampled data systems work. No portions of the audio waveform (peaks, valleys, zero-crossings, whatever) are either specifically captured or specifically missed. This gets into Fourier analysis and the physics of the reconstruction filter, antialiasing filters, sin(x)/x correction, etc. On the surface, a sampled data system can seem pretty straightforward, even simple. But when you get down into the details, the math becomes very thick. And that's the thing - in the details, it can shift from intuitively obvious to very, very counter-intuitive. It's all in the math, and after over 40 years, the math is correct whether you like it or not.

The original recording probably has some analog-domain compression or soft peak limiting to contain the dynamic range, followed by more "adjustment" in the digital domain (pitch correction, tempo correction, midrange "sweetening", noise reduction, etc.) before packaging in a lossless file format for CD mastering.

Separate from that, almost all YouTube audio is compressed; not lossless-ly and sometimes quite heavily. This is a far cry from the original audio file, be it .WAV or some other format. All YouTube audio is compressed, so all YouTube audio has had some information removed, using algorithms based on human perception testing. I have to say "almost" because there probably is some full-bandwidth 192 kHz stuff out there. I put "almost" at 99%, but it's been a decade or two since I drilled down.

ak