[Crowbar]

There is no point contained therein that was not already made in my post.

 

[grawk]

Yes, there was.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowbar /img/forum/go_quote.gif b0dhi, note that the theorem you quoted refers to "frequencies". Frequencies are sines. All other waveforms are composed of sines, so your argument is incorrect.

You misunderstand my argument, which was that gregorio didn't refer to sine waves or frequencies, he referred to waveforms. I take it I won't have to explain that although a sine is a waveform, a waveform is not a sine. He was implying (whether intentionally or through lazy prose) that any waveform could be represented as well by 2 points/samples as by 5 million, which is patently untrue. The fact that any waveform can be constructed by a number (possibly infinite) of sine waves should not be confused with the concept of waveforms itself.

(snip true but irrelevant digression)

 

[Publius]

What exactly is your point? So gregorio got his terminology wrong in places. Big deal. I think everybody can look past that.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius /img/forum/go_quote.gif What exactly is your point? So gregorio got his terminology wrong in places. Big deal. I think everybody can look past that.

But he's a university lecturer that knows the Harvard referencing system? Surely he understands the importance of precision in language, even if his lap-dogs don't? I wonder - which university do you lecture in, gregorio, and in which faculty?

 

[grawk]

How are academic credentials relevent?

 

[gregorio]

b0hdi - I used the term "waveforms" meaning any simple or complex sine wave. Sorry, I mistakenly took it for granted that you knew we were talking about sound waves which actually exist in the real world rather than sawtooths, square waves or pink elephants! I also mistakenly assumed that you knew that the whole theory behind digital audio is only true for sine waves.

So what now? You're starting to sound desparate, to be picking up on such irrelevant details as my marginally vague use of the term waveforms. BTW, there's no way I'm telling you where I lecture, you sound far too much like an adolescent nutter!

 

[regal]

I think credentials are revelant. Gregorio's background is obviously the science of sound, others come from the EE side. The problem that we are dealing with is a combination of these two disciplines, both have to be considered in this argument. Scientists and engineers never agree.

I appreciate Gregorio sharing his knowledge on the subject, both sides can learn from each other.

 

[gregorio]

Hi Regal - My background was as an orchestral musician and then as a composer, engineer and producer and more recently as a lecturer. I'm not a scientist and don't fully understand much of the math behind digital audio. I have a reasonably good understanding of digital audio theory (for a layman) because it so impacted on my work.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Surely he understands the importance of precision in language, even if his lap-dogs don't?

Ad hominem attacks and irrelevant nit picking isn't going to make your case. Behave like an adult.

See ya
Steve

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif b0hdi - I used the term "waveforms" meaning any simple or complex sine wave.

That isn't what the word means. Instead of making excuses, use the correct word. You've done this more than once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif So what now? You're starting to sound desparate, to be picking up on such irrelevant details as my marginally vague use of the term waveforms. BTW, there's no way I'm telling you where I lecture, you sound far too much like an adolescent nutter!

The reason I highlighted your incorrect use of terminology is because as soon as the discussion deviates beyond your area of expertise - which is limited to audio mastering - you stop having a clue what you're talking about and start mincing words and concepts. This has happened far more often than once.

I don't have any problem with you bringing practical audio mastering experience to the discussion, but I do have a problem when you use the credibility earned with that knowledge in other areas where your knowledge is, as you admitted, at the level of a layman.

And believe me, the only reason I asked for your credentials is to demonstrate that you wouldn't provide any. No respectable university would offer tenure to someone who can't spell, or someone who can't provide references in support of his assertions, or someone who doesn't understand what is meant when a reference is asked for.

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif . No respectable university would offer tenure to someone who can't spell, or someone who can't provide references in support of his assertions, or someone who doesn't understand what is meant when a reference is asked for.

Some of the brightest university research professors I have worked with couldn't spell. This has no relevance.

Even though I disagree with Gregorio about NOS vs. OS in D-A conversion and A-D conversion, I think your issue is one of a language barrier.

 

[hciman77]

oops wrong forum

 

[hciman77]

oops wrong forum again

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason I highlighted your incorrect use of terminology is because as soon as the discussion deviates beyond your area of expertise - which is limited to audio mastering - you stop having a clue what you're talking about and start mincing words and concepts. This has happened far more often than once.

If you are going to build your argument on logical fallacies based on authority, you aren't going to get anywhere. Argue on point, don't attack your opponent. If you don't get back on track soon, we're all going to just write you off as a jerk and move on.

See ya
Steve