wakibaki

Bye.

A return to sanity. Are you done filibustering Jud? The reason you don't understand what I mean by 'information' is that I use it in the sense that Claude Shannon used it. You have the opportunity to discuss the sampling theory with someone who understands it well enough to make it comprehensible in everyday terms. You should take advantage of it.

You could have a little man inside the computer who takes all the numbers and draws a graph through them, and then reads the value off the graph at the midpoints between the existing points and inserts it between the existing numbers, but you could take away all those extra numbers, and the graph would still be there. That's the meaning of redundancy.

Let me explain upsampling. We'll consider doubling the sampling rate, as this is the least complex. The sample rate is to double, so we need twice as many numbers. What are we going to do with the existing numbers and how are we going to arrange the new ones in relation to them? The basic answer is simple. We put the new values in between the old values (and tag one onto the end). OK. Now what values do we put in between the old ones. Simple. We put in the values that don't change the information content. We can't put in values that do change the information content, because it might be changed in ways we don't want. The problem is, how do you figure out the right number? You can put in the average value of each 2 consecutive samples, called linear interpolation, but it doesn't work. Anyway, I'll leave you to think about that, but that's the basic reason there's no more information in an up sampled file than in the original. Just because there is channel capacity, it doesn't mean it's occupied.

Nobody likes a smartass... ...oh. I just had a horrible moment of personal insight.

1. Jud's posts are too long. 2. He appreciates a good quote, and he's almost certainly read Catch 22. Ou sont les Neigedons d'antan? 3. I prefer to use a carrot, but some mules are stubborn.

You're dead wrong, where would it come from? Oversampled, at the same bit depth, yes. These are not trivial errors. These are vital distinctions. If I said that, I'd get ripped to shreds. If you're dismissing them as marketing jargon, you really don't understand the process.

If you're saying that there was found to be a difference, where are the studies that showed that? Why aren't they quoted every time this argument comes up? Oh, this was all settled 25 years ago... ...in your dreams. This is not your area of expertise. A lawyer who has a lawyer for an engineer is a fool. You state your conclusion, then go on to justify it by inference. The conclusions you draw reflect your incomplete grasp of the subject, there are more reasons to upsample than mere increased detail, and anyway the upsampled bitstream can contain no more information than the original.

Very good Jud, but none of this speaks to the superiority or otherwise of RB as a distribution system. It all hinges on whether the differences are audible, not whether there's a possibility that skipping 2 steps might make a difference. I wish you'd confine yourself to less prolix posts, but I suppose that's all part of trying to hide the concept that you're trying to palm. Maybe that's a bit unfair, but it's a trait of lawyers to become entranced by a good argument, to the point of considering the truth irrelevant, but I guess in a crowd of audiophiles you're not going to stick out.

Anybody who thinks they've found credible evidence posts it there first, because there's no kudos in getting a rave review at WBF.

Well, of course if you want to judge it on the basis of personalities, that's only one of the behaviours I'm objecting to. I try to detach myself from issues of personality where technical argument is concerned. You do realise that if there is a breakthrough in this area, hydrogenaudio will be the place on the internet that it will be confirmed?

You're constantly bitching at me about accepting things without questioning. No-one should really accept this paper at face value without being familiar with some of the reservations expressed here. The Audibility of Typical Digital Audio Filters in a High-Fidelity Pla - Hydrogenaudio Forums

I'm having difficulty understanding why I'm being told to reconsider scientific orthodoxies established for 150 years or so, but I get pilloried for questioning new orthodoxies introduced only yesterday. The idea than frequencies above 20k are inaudible has a lot more support than just Meyer and Moran. The last set of ISO standards showed equal loudness contours to ~16k.

Do you really think it is possible to discuss this issue against a background of people discussing their anecdotes as though the matter has been settled in their favour? This is a poor substitute for evidence with provenance, specially when all the evidence shows this not to be the case. It doesn't even compete with rational discussion of the balance of probabilities.

What you have here is a comparatively small number of hi-res enthusiasts congregating locally and drowning out any rational discussion in threads like this. You have to remember that statistically you are only entitled to a tiny fraction of the bandwidth. Your views are not representative of the population as a whole. As long as it is an open forum, you will get people coming along from time to time and trying to reconnect you to reality. And you wonder why you have a problem attracting membership?