On 22/08/2015, Ethan Duni <ethan.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We've been over this repeatedly, including in the very post you are > responding to. The fact that there are many ways to produce a graph of the > interpolation spectrum is not in dispute, nor is it germaine to my point.
Earlier you disputed that there's no upsampling involved. Apparently you change your mind quite often... > It's seems like you are trying to > avoid my point entirely, in favor of some imaginary dispute of your own > invention, which you think you can "win." I claimed something, and you disputed it. I proved that what I claimed, is true. Therefore, all your further arguments are invalid... (and are boring) > I have no idea what you think you are proving by scrutinizing graph > artifacts like that I am proving that what you see on the graph is not sinc(x) / sinc^2(x), but rather some noisy curve, like the spectrum of upsampled noise. Therefore, my original argument is correct. > It's also in extremely poor taste to use "retard" as a term of abuse. Well, if you do not see that the graph pictured on Olli's figure is not sinc(x), then you're retarded. > Meanwhile, it seems that you are suggesting that the spectrum of white > noise linearly interpolated up to a high oversampling rate is not sinc^2. Naturally, there's going to be some jaggedness in the spectrum because of the noise. So, obviously, that is not sinc^2 then. > Are you claiming that those wiggles in the graph represent > aliasing of the spectrum from resampling at 44.1kHz? If so, that is > unlikely. Nope, the "wiggles" in the graph are from the noise. -P _______________________________________________ music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
