[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
How many are saying that real music can't possibly be segmented into 888,200 disctrete segments a second given the technology? A continuous event can be segmented over a span of time of one second into millions of fractions of second - done all the time in physics labs. If continuous music can be segmented into over 888,200 samples per second, as it can, then a digital sample of 44,100 times per second is 5 percent or less of the whole music.

I hear a bunch of people saying I am lying or otherwise misreporting what Hirsch said about the 5 percent sampling, without one shred of evidence to say this - just emotion.

That is incredible - that some of you have opnions about the nature of material events based on your imagination or emotion, and not on material reality.

Or that you use a totally inadequate and inconclusive search of the Hirsch article to assert that the article does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born2bwire /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you're wrong. Continuous music can be segmented into 158,341 samples per second and thus a digital sample of 44,100 times per second is 28% or less of the whole music.

Art: At last - a pertinent and intelligent comment to my report of an assertion by Hirsch of digtal 5 percent sampling of the whole analog feed from the microphone in recording.

Your figure of 28 percent sampling is interesting.

Consider a second of continuous music. Now break this down into segments or time intervals where digtal could sample completely with the right technology.

Now when digital conversion takes one of these segments, it necessarily has to ingnore adjacent segments, before and after, while it is processing the sample taken. These are dead or ignored samples of the analog which digital can't convert.

Hirsch says (as I reported from memory) that the one second of continuous music can be time segmented to equal 20 times the 44,100 per second sampling per second of digtal conversion, or 888,200 segments per second, and that 19 of these segments are ignored in the analog to digital conversion processing of a live microphone analog pick up.

You say the digital sample from analog is 28 percent. Is this because the one second of live misic can not be segmented into 888,200 segments since that is too many, or is this because there are less than 19 out of 20 dead or ignored time-intreval segments than I stated above ?

I think we all agree that analog to digital conversion involves taking discrete samples from a continuous feed that represent only a part of the whole analog feed.

Leave aside the question as to whether computational reconstructing the whole from a part yields the same conclusion as the original whole itself.

Can anyone offer any data regarding how many time intervals music (as picked up by a microphone) can be segmented - 888,200 segments or otherwise?

Can anyone offer any data regarding how many time sements of analog are ignored relative to samples taken in analog to digital conversion?


Hirsch offered no rationale' for his saying 5 percent of the anaolg feed is sampled at a rate of 444,100 times per second in anlog to digital conversion (and used then to reconstruct the anaolg whole). He just said and said this sample was enough to make most people unable to detect any difference.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear a bunch of people saying I am lying or otherwise misreporting what Hirsch said about the 5 percent sampling, without one shred of evidence to say this - just emotion. That is incredible - that some of you have opnions about the nature of material events based on your imagination or emotion, and not on material reality.

Put up or shut up. Show us the article. Every time you refer to "reality" without doing so, you simply further demonstrate that you are a complete and utter hypocrite.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone finding a so-called expert should not give a hear-say report

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear a bunch of people saying I am lying or otherwise misreporting what Hirsch said about the 5 percent sampling, without one shred of evidence to say this - just emotion. That is incredible - that some of you have opnions about the nature of material events based on your imagination or emotion, and not on material reality.

The hypocrisy continues. Put up or shut up. Show us the article.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sure, but then are we talking about a scale that these gaps are audible?!

Any burst of sound, no matter if it only last one millionith of second, will register on the ear drum and generate an auditory nerve impulse.

Doesn't mean this sound would be interpreted as a sound - might be regarded as a slight pain sensation not related to a sound from an unknown source.

It would be sensed but perhaps not perceived in awareness (or improperly interpreted in awareness if it got there).

The addition of many such brief (1/1,000,000 of second) bursts of sound is peceived in awareness and is interpreted as a sound, and might sound differently with the addition of more such bursts or subtraction thereof ,e.g, a tone containing 20 times as many of these brief bursts, say a million in asecond might sound slightly different to some than the smaller sample of 50,000 in a second - but both would sound like a continuous tone. This goes back to the machine gun example earlier.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif The hypocrisy continues. Put up or shut up. Show us the article.

Don't believe my report if you wish, but you base this on no evidence to contradict it. Your thinking is wish-fulfilling rather than reality based, like believing that Santa Claus will bring you new car next Xmas.

It's childish cognition.

Where is my hyprocrisy BTW?

 

[Le Dechaine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif 44,100 samples per second. times 20, equal 888,200 - given Hirsch reported a 1/20 sample size from the whole analog signal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif This rnaster tape to vinyl cut is also continuous and not sampled.

Well, being a, let's say, newbie in audiophile stuff, make me listen to a song directly from a CD, and then the same song, but in mp3 format, and, assuming there's not a lot of 16000hz+ frequencies (because mp3's are just brutally killing everything up 16000hz), i don't think i could hear a difference between the mp3 and the CD, at least, if i'm not *carefully* listening, because the differences for me are (for now) subtle, even if they're *really* different formats.

Anyway, just to get to the funny point that sometimes, I can't mention minor differences, just like nobody here ever mentioned that 44100 x 20 = 882000, not 888200 like drarthurwells said, and that he also wrote RNaster instead of master.

(I guess that's why he wrote RNaster, he was searching for someone who could percept minor differences..

)

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Art, your reality is exactly how you describe it yourself. But some of what you're stated is entertaining, especially the part with the blinking universe. Do you have any links to that matter? .

Well the on-of pulses of the universe are simply the changes seen in the quantum leap - the electron doen't move from one orbit to another in a continuous fashion - it disappears and reappears as the universe pulses off then on.

We think that energy causes movement when actually the reverse is also true. This is related to matter and energy, and a particle and a wave, being aspects of the same thing.

Both energy and matter, and particles and waves, are presented in successive frames of the universe unfolding. This is regulated by data computation of data from all the past frames and all possible future frames, to produce a new present. Each present is a frame that replaces a former - each present is new "blink on". God is an amoral computer and the material universe is digtial.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your thinking is wish-fulfilling rather than reality based, like believing that Santa Claus will bring you new car next Xmas.

Frankly, I think that it is more likely that Santa Claus will bring me a new car, than it is that this Hirsch article actually exists and says what you claim it says. I've seen you misrepresent the conclusions of articles in the past, so please don't expect me to believe your hearsay description of Hirsch's alleged report. If you want me to believe you, show me the article. It's that simple.

Hciman has exposed you as a fraud. That is reality. You rely on hearsay, and yet you assert that others should not. That is hypocrisy.

I'm sure that every one is as tired of reading these exchanges as I am of writing them, so I am done with this discussion. Unless you provide credible support for the existence of this article, I will not reply further to your increasingly-ridiculous posts.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sure that every one is as tired of reading these exchanges as I am of writing them,

I do think the time has come to end the sniping, fellas. There is more to life.

And as several people have pointed out, the REALLY fun thing about Vinyl collecting is all the reocrds you can get that provide music that cannot be found any other way.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well the on-of pulses of the universe are simply the changes seen in the quantum leap - the electron doen't move from one orbit to another in a continuous fashion - it disappears and reappears as the universe pulses off then on. We think that energy causes movement when actually the reverse is also true. This is related to matter and energy, and a particle and a wave, being aspects of the same thing. Both energy and matter, and particles and waves, are presented in successive frames of the universe unfolding. This is regulated by data computation of data from all the past frames and all possible future frames, to produce a new present. Each present is a frame that replaces a former - each present is new "blink on". God is an amoral computer and the material universe is digital.

Any links to the matter? Or is this your creation?
.

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif And as several people have pointed out, the REALLY fun thing about Vinyl collecting is all the reocrds you can get that provide music that cannot be found any other way.

the same can be said for just about every medium out there including CD's. collecting music in general is fun and there are many recordings that can only be found on CD.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif I hear a bunch of people saying I am lying or otherwise misreporting what Hirsch said about the 5 percent sampling, without one shred of evidence to say this - just emotion. Hirsch says (as I reported from memory) that the one second of continuous music can be time segmented to equal 20 times the 44,100 per second sampling per second of digtal conversion, or 888,200 segments per second, and that 19 of these segments are ignored in the analog to digital conversion processing of a live microphone analog pick up. Hirsch offered no rationale' for his saying 5 percent of the anaolg feed is sampled at a rate of 444,100 times per second in anlog to digital conversion (and used then to reconstruct the anaolg whole). He just said and said this sample was enough to make most people unable to detect any difference.

Art, your story changes every time you tell it.

Art, please just find the wretched article, I for one think you are mistaken, hey I have even offered you a gamble at 2:1 odds if you can find it, I have offred a straight-up $100 if you can find it, I have told you where you can find a list of Public Libraries in Florida and where you can find Stereo Review in Florida, tell me which city you live in in Florida and I will find you the nearest public library that carries it, I cant do much more to help you.

You constantly tell us how flawed memory and perception are, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, you cannot prove your case, and you know it and so you just bluster and bluster and evade and change the argument.

No single Human being has been able to verify your story, Barry Blesser, world renowned Digital expert calls it "pure garbage" , yesterday I contacted Kees Immink who was Philips' head engineer on the Philips/Sony collaboration to create the CD standard and created the EFM and EFM-Plus techniques which were crucial to the long playing length of the CD.

I asked him about 44.1 and 5% and so forth.

> Specifically I am trying to ascertain the truth of a report that implied
> that the 16/ 44.1 standard was based on listening experiments by Philips &
> Sony that showed that a 5% sample of data was sufficient to be audibly
> indistinguishable from an original recording. This looks increasingly like
> scotch mist and even a fairly thorough search, including several of your
> publications and 12 years worth of articles in Stereo Review shows no
> evidence to back this up.
> Can you possibly shed any light on this, or is this just a complete red
> herring?


Frankly he was little help one way or another, however he did say

"The 44.1 kHz sample frequency was chosen because the digital studio recorders were running at that frequency. Nothing else was available."

He had no knowledge of these experiments and he was at Philips Research Labs from 1967 - 1998.

Art, dismiss my expert witnesses as much as you like but provide credible evidence of your own for your case. You could approach either Philips or Sony yourself, some of the original engineers my still be there.

I have expended a lot of effort (many hours) trying to verify your case, I genuinely wanted to see the Hirsch article, I wanted to see how Hirsch rationalized this 5%, so far you have done nothing but posture.

Art, prove that you are not wrong find the article written by Hirsch that says that 5% stuff and I will publicly say, "Hey Art was right after all" , you cannot say fairer than that.

Art, find the article or stop citing it.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any links to the matter? Or is this your creation? .

That's a rhetorical question right ?

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a rhetorical question right ?

No, I'm seriously interested.
.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do think the time has come to end the sniping, fellas. There is more to life.

It's the weekend, I have a few spare minutes

This isn't sniping , it is critical inqury (Dewey, 1918) .This all started because a potentially interesting issue (5% 44.1 psychoacoustics) was raised, I and some others were intrigued and wanted to learn more, how do you quantify data in bit terms from something like live sound. I was genuinely interested and wanted to find the Hirsch article, I wanted to see how this idea was backed up by theory or empirical testing. I did a lot of independent research and failed to find this story anywhere or even anybody else in the whole world who remembers it. I have approached several industry professionals and digital experts. Surely something as fundamental as this could not have passed unnoticed. Surely this would be part of the "digital legend" and would be on every article talking about the history of the CD. I still hold some hope that this can be found, but, I think I have expended enough of my own effort, meanwhile Art has done nothing to support his claim but to repeat it in wildly differing forms.