robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 8/9/15 6:23 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
1) a dithered sigma-delta converter is typically better quality than
one without dithering
Correct.
there is and always had been **some** discussion and controversy about
that every time i seen it discussed at an AES convention. i remember
hearing (and talking with) Stan Lipshitz about it.
I'm glad some people might not hold the gospel, but at least keep some
tabs on the subject.
Now a serious concern: it has come to my attention that some people seem
to deem it appropriate to talk about their favorite subject, without any
self-scrutiny concerning which communication thread they abuse for that.
It could be clear to only reasonably intelligent people that trying to
convince everybody that all DSP is ancient message encoding and some
privatized form for file compression is not just a sign of weakness and
lack of intelligence or perhaps knowledge about the subject at hand, but
also a nuisance to people that might discuss subject like reasonable
adults instead of sophist zealots. It might even be that people miss the
point of actually interesting subjects being brought forward, and that
can not be the general intention of internet communication in the free
west, IMO.
The main point I was trying to make is that I appreciate efforts that
keep various traditional filter and (non-) linear subjects what they
are, and I prefer to be able to describe the effects a piece of DSP code
has, which appears often to be not as clear as it seems at first sight.
Trying to quantify all kinds of errors as encoded signals is not a
solution to any of the inaccuracies at hand, because DSP versus ideal
filter congruence, (re-) sampling related inaccuracies, analog error
correction in DSP domain, noise suppression or (proper) signal recovery
are all served by strong analytical thinking and explicit methods for
most of which accurate mathematical underpinning exists (like I said
some of it for EE undergrads, and I don't like people researching those
subjects as if they can be claimed as "new", but that's another
discussion). Messing about with error coding schemes that can hardly
predict di-grams has nothing whatsoever to do with proper engineering in
those fields, let alone with proper science.
I understand some people can feel a bit embarrassed about some subjects
I raised, but I've worked enough on theoretics to know how to behave
myself, and have a genuine interest in the some DSP subjects I have
results with at high levels of aggregation and some serious digital
audio equipment, and in the theoretical progress I think is possible
here. Engineering knowledge is hard to get, in some countries maybe not
even possible, but that's no reason to devaluate the main lines it can
offer, or hide the higher education under a burden of non-sense.
T.V.
_______________________________________________
music-dsp mailing list
music-dsp@music.columbia.edu
https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
