Golden Ears Fail Again

[markw]

Really Mr. Mash...most technical books introduce basic concepts in their introductory chapters, and then expand on these concepts in subsequent chapters. You are assuming too much Mr. Mash, trying reading the TOC of the book in question, it should give you a clue.

Generally, if a concept is introduced in an early chapter to be referenced later, it's usually mentioned by name in the subsequent chapters. In that case, most indices would show multiple references and ,if not, they would mention only the one that explained it, not where it was merely introduced.

Phrases like "that concept we mentioned in an earlier chapter" is a little vague for most technical publications.

[jneutron]

It's getting rather tiresome, being e-mailed that someone has posted on this thread..

I'm unsubscribing this one..

Somebody wake me up should information arrive...

Cheers, John

[Mash]

Mr markw:

Your referenced site does NOT offer the book under discussion for FREE.

That site offers the referenced book for FREE*.

Those little * can have some big teeth. Here are a few of those teeth:

Step 2: Complete sponsor offers
Sponsors cover the entire cost of your free gift, plus all the shipping & handling fees. By "completing an offer", we mean that you take delivery of the product or service provided by the sponsor. For credit card offers, you must be approved for and activate that credit card. Activation means completing a balance transfer or using your new credit card for a purchase. A pop-up window will appear after you click on a sponsor's offer with details on how to complete a particular offer.

It takes up to 60 days after you complete an offer before our sponsor notifies us. Once we receive this notification, your account will be updated accordingly.

Please note: Earning some free gifts requires you to complete more than one sponsor offer. Each gift has a Level which indicates the required number of sponsor offers that you must complete:

yadda-yadda-yadda

[markw]

RobotCzar,

I have distilled all the questions you have in your post, do you have anymore questions to the list before I go away and answer them?

Get some good answers. sumptin' tells me there's gonna be a quiz...

[markw]

Mr markw:

Your referenced site does NOT offer the book under discussion for FREE.

That site offers the referenced book for FREE*.

Those little * can have some big teeth. Here are a few of those teeth:

Step 2: Complete sponsor offers
Sponsors cover the entire cost of your free gift, plus all the shipping & handling fees. By "completing an offer", we mean that you take delivery of the product or service provided by the sponsor. For credit card offers, you must be approved for and activate that credit card. Activation means completing a balance transfer or using your new credit card for a purchase. A pop-up window will appear after you click on a sponsor's offer with details on how to complete a particular offer.

It takes up to 60 days after you complete an offer before our sponsor notifies us. Once we receive this notification, your account will be updated accordingly.

Please note: Earning some free gifts requires you to complete more than one sponsor offer. Each gift has a Level which indicates the required number of sponsor offers that you must complete:

yadda-yadda-yadda

Well, gee whiz. The internet said it was free so it MUST be true, right? I mean, everything I read on the internet is true, isn't it? .

I'm just having fun with the kid. I'm surprised you didn't get that. We adults know there ain't no such tning as a free lunch.

[Mash]

While I considered that you were teasing him with the FREE* by posting it as FREE, I did want to avoid a wholesale slaughter of those here who suggest in their posts the credulity to purchase exotic wires and I/C simply because they 'want to believe'.

Sometimes adults aren't.

[markw]

RobotCzar,

You ask for a textbook that references the concepts, I provide you one and you retort saying "You know it's right though and that it backs your misconceptions regarding frequency and phase" How would you know that without the reading the book first? Or did you forget that you specifically asked for textbook references, if you want to know what is in the book, you can either read it yourself or ask me to get it rather than build castles in the air which is how you got yourself into a mess in the first place.

.. that if you are citing a reference book as a source of information you would at least know what it says.

Unless, of course, merely playing games and producing nothing substantial is the overall intent. I'm beginning to smell a troll...

I think any and all can see this attention starved kid for the clown he really is.

He just isn't worthy of any serious discussion. The kid simply hasn't got in him. He just wants the attention. He can't even own up to that decibles fiasco he started and that's year one stuff. I mean 40 (forty) posts asking him to either put up or shut up and he's got nothing to show for it. All he can do is play word games and thinks that he's clever.

Well, maybe he's got a point. So far it's worked. He's certainly got the attention he craves from superior minds. Maybe not the best kind of attention but to some, any attention is better than none at all.

I mean, I'm starting to feel like I'm carrying on a conversation with Paul Reubens in a Florida movie theater.

What say we simply ignore this kid until he produces something worthy of a response.

Now, he'll crow about how much bettter he is and how we can't match his superior intellect but by now I'm pretty sure any and all can see what's up. He ain't shown squat and everyone here, yeasayer, naysayer and maysayer alike can see that. It's kinda like worrying about a child calling you names because he's mad at you. You take it from the source.

Well, maybe a quick biitch slap once and a while when he asks for it , but you know what I mean.

So, any adults have any input on any other subject matter at hand?

[theaudiohobby]

Now, I know these books are not recent (I took these subject a while ago), nor are they as authorative as your Google searches; but humor me and check out your textbooks. Please provide a reference to the key concepts of time and frequency "domains". Such books are a cure for ignorance. Any explanation as to why these books don't mention this assumedly basic concept?

First music signal is a time-variant signal, that it characteristics vary with time, however in electronics (especially in digital audio but not exclusive to it) musical signals can be represented in the as time invariant signals, here the signal is defined in terms of it frequency domain performance. This is possible because the frequency domain performance of a musical signal is defined in terms of discrete time samples. An analog signal can be successfully defined as an infinite set of successive discrete time signals. The frequency domain performance of time domain signal is effective a summation or (an integral) of the time domain representation of the given signal i.e. time parameter is a fixed quantity in the frequency domain representation of a music signal. In the time domain, the relationship between the input and output of a given signal is defined by the impulse response, however as can be readily appreciate this impulse response of a signal is frequency dependent, the frequency domain removes the complexity by assuming discrete time samples.

As can be readily seen from the brief introduction above, the frequency domain representation is simple performance parameter than time domain representation since it assumes time invariance i.e. fixed impulse response. This approach was popular in the early days of audio but the technology of the time, i.e. low sampling rates e.g 44.1KHz soon uncovered an unforeseen problem, i.e. an FIR filter in the name of brickwall filters have detrimental effects on audio quality at low sampling rates. Generally, filters in general are not subjectively benign at audio frequencies, due to their large departure from what can be regarded as an impulse response. Therefore the departure from the ideal impulse response has to be accounted for, an issue that is largely acknowledged in loudspeaker design and digital audio and more recently in amplifier design because of it measurable as well as audible consequences. The time domain behaviour is an issue in amplifier design as the published measurements of many amplifiers readily demonstrates that not an inconsiderable number of them show frequency dependent distortion and some of this frequency dependent distortion has its origin in the time domain.

So in answer to your questions RobotCzar here goes,

Why is it you think a book on "audio circuits" (whatever those are) would be different that one on electronic circuits?

Audio circuits deal with time variant signals, not all signals are time variant anyway.

Aren't audio circuits electronic?

Sure they are.

Aren't electrical waves carrying an audio signal following the same laws of physics as those carrying other signals?

Yes, the behaviour of a 300MHz signal and a 20KHz are different in so far as the relevance of various performance parameters, In certain fields, it sufficient to define a signal in it frequency domain representation.

Do differences in the "frequency domain" and "time domain" apply only to audio signals?

Most certainly, there is whole body of work on this, I have already referenced some in the past.

Does Mr. Horowitz back up your claims about the significance of the "domains"?

I am fairly confident that he does since he mentions the concepts alongside a RC circuit, moreover frequency domain and time domain resolution have become fairly standard parts of signal representation theory.

What do I have to do to get you to explain how errors in the "time domain" are resulting in bad audio?

I have already done so, it is by no means definitive but it points you in the right way

And please explain why audio circuit designers keep ignoring this "problem"?

The simple answer is that they do not and this can be readily seen in the material that you have poo pooed, when you amplifier references. Remember this, frequency response measurements does not capture phase shift nor does it capture the any departure from the ideal impulse response. For example, Time alignment is time domain effects compensation facility.

There is sufficient reputable work out there, some of the previous material were lectures notes from Stanford!, to show that you that your posts were simplistic and totally wrong wrt to their conclusion on time domain and frequency domain behaviour. I hope I have succeeded in humouring you and that you will eat humble pie and accept that you were 'out of your depth' when you ridiculed my objections to your overly simplistic view of audio quality measurement and perception.

Finally, what kind of references on time and frequency domain do you want to see?

[theaudiohobby]

Unless, of course, merely playing games and producing nothing substantial is the overall intent. I'm beginning to smell a troll...

so far, as per this little diversion, you are the troll, approximately five extra posts since you said you were signing off and more tostill come, your huge ego will make sure of that.

[theaudiohobby]

Nice cut and paste.

, what and where from? On this thread, you are nothing but a troll.

[markw]

, what and where from? On this thread, you are nothing but a troll.

I said I wouldn't bother with you until you said something meaningful but I still posted this. Hindsight made me think twice about going against what I had posted and deleted it but, you aw it first. In any case, here is the post I deleted.

I'm still waiting for you to "be a man" and finally prove that "3db up or down is DOUBLE the audible change in volume " statement that you staunchly defended with smiley faces and name calling.

That "nice cut and paste" was in reference to your response to RC here. Had it been your thoughts, I'm sure you would have posted immediately and not searched for almost a week before posting. Googling and cutting and pasting takes time . y'know.

Anyhow, I'm still waiting... Can you hear?

...but you aren't, you can't and won't. You've proven that already.

Anyhow, Markw out and abiding by his word. Sorry guys. On with the show, if anyone cares.

[theaudiohobby]

I'm still waiting for you to "be a man" and finally prove that "3db up or down is DOUBLE the audible change in volume " statement that you staunchly defended with smiley faces and name calling

It shows how petty minded you really are, stop sulking and get over it, it is unbecoming of you, next time try not to carry over your sulking to unrelated threads. On this thread you are nothing more than a troll.

That "nice cut and paste" was in reference to your response to RC here. Had it been your thoughts, I'm sure you would have posted immediately and not searched for almost a week before posting. Googling and cutting and pasting takes time . y'know.

You are not doing yourself any justice here whatsoever, so the basis of your snide remark was a direct answer to a question posed by RobotCzar, who must be feeling silly by now and it forms less than five percent of the post, even then I wonder why Mash or yourself did not pick up on the information last week, it was always there, read my response to Mash about the TOC, match the TOC entries with the relevant index entries, its simple deduction.

Anyhow, Markw out and abiding by his word. Sorry guys. On with the show, if anyone cares.

A bit late in the day to close the stables, the horses have already bolted. On this thread, you pretty much scored an own goal by betraying a huge ego problem as well as a sulking demeanor, hence your lousy judgement and very silly bait.