 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.166.164.65
In Reply to: LOL!... posted by mkuller on November 14, 2005 at 10:53:34:
Y'all talkin' about me, now, or who?Or was that directed to Steve Eddy, who people are afraid to let post in the cable asylum?
Follow Ups:
SEJ: ""Or was that directed to Steve Eddy, who people are afraid to let post in the cable asylum? ""Not people...person...person who is afraid..
The same person who is afraid of that Tony Montana guy. Appears that his posts are being deleted immediately after they are posted..
Cheers, John.
IIRC, Eddy was banned because he refused to follow the rules.
IIRC, Eddy was banned because he refused to follow the rules.
*BZZZZZZZZZT!*
Wrong. Try again.
I was banned because I dared to question and challenge objective claims I found questionable and challengeable. It wasn't because I refused to follow the rules. In fact, what I was ultimately banned for is explicitly ENCOURAGED in the Asylum's rules!
I refer you to rule G:
G. Debate about audio, even when heated, is encouraged. This is not about censorship.It is indeed about censorship. The moderator over on Cable Asylum had effectively set the place up as his own private guru ashram and simply could not tolerate his claims ever being questioned or challenged.
If you want to know just what a complete wack job he is, he even threatened to have me banned on Tweaker's Asylum for recommending to people that they try things for themselves and decide for themselves what sounds best to them.
He literally considers such advice "anarchy" and does not tolerate it.
Tell me where THAT is a violation of the rules.
So get your facts straight. I wasn't banned on Cable Asylum because I refused to follow the rules. I was banned on Cable Asylum for personal reasons.
se
What rules?You said:
> I was banned because I dared to question and challenge objective claims I found questionable and challengeable.>Sounds like you may have violated the Cable Asylum's primary directive:
"The Cable Asylum is for those who have decided that audio cables make a sonic difference. If you do not feel that audio cables do sound different, then do not post here. Posts that state that audio cables sound the same, or that all one needs is zip cord and/or dimestore coax, may be deleted, re-directed or other actions taken at the sole discretion of the moderators or the Bored."And:
"If you post more than one such post, you may be banned from the Cable Asylum.
There are other forums for those who wish to argue or discuss DBT's or whether cables sound the same."
Sounds like you may have violated the Cable Asylum's primary directive:
"The Cable Asylum is for those who have decided that audio cables make a sonic difference. If you do not feel that audio cables do sound different, then do not post here. Posts that state that audio cables sound the same, or that all one needs is zip cord and/or dimestore coax, may be deleted, re-directed or other actions taken at the sole discretion of the moderators or the Bored."
Nope. Didn't violate that rule.
And:
"If you post more than one such post, you may be banned from the Cable Asylum.
There are other forums for those who wish to argue or discuss DBT's or whether cables sound the same."
Nor that one.
Again, I was banned for personal reasons, not violations of the rules.
se
Does this Mkuller guy stalk y'all around, too?Who is he, anyhow? He obviously don't get nothing about sampling, or how digital recordings work, at least in any great degree, he perpetuates a great load of quackery with his completely crocked claims that DBT's don't work for something-or-other (and that seems to change at his convenience), and he is willing to make egregious accusations (did you see where he insinuated that jj was fired, instead of retired, because of misconduct, or senility, or something like that).
What does he have going for him, or is this his only litterbox?
> He obviously don't get nothing about sampling, or how digital recordings work, at least in any great degree,>Unless you can substantiate this, you sir, are a liar...
Ok, tell me then, does dithering:
1) Get rid of correlated artifacts due to quantization completely (no, won't get rid of correlated artifacts due to anything else)
2) Get rid of them partially
3) Mask themWhat is the interchannel resolution (in time units)of a high frequency signal between the two channels of a Redbook CD. Pick the answer that's closest.
1) 1/44100 seconds
2) 2/44100 seconds
3) 1/(44100*65546) seconds
4) pi/(44100*16484) seconds
5) 1/(pi*22050*65536) secondsWhat is the meaning of the "beating" that is reported to occur when a sine wave near 20kHz is sampled at 44100 Hz?
1) It shows that the sampling theorem doesn't work.
2) It shows that somebody forgot to use an anti-imaging filter
3) It shows that somebody put the probe at the wrong place in the circuit
4) It shows extra in-band sine waves that result from sampling errors.
Ok, tell me then, does dithering:
1) Get rid of correlated artifacts due to quantization completely (no, won't get rid of correlated artifacts due to anything else)
2) Get rid of them partially
3) Mask themThe answer is "2".... For dither is not a "perfect" solution to the quantization error problem.
What is the interchannel resolution (in time units)of a high frequency signal between the two channels of a Redbook CD. Pick the answer that's closest.
1) 1/44100 seconds
2) 2/44100 seconds
3) 1/(44100*65546) seconds
4) pi/(44100*16484) seconds
5) 1/(pi*22050*65536) secondsThere is no "closest" answer.... For each system has an error that is different.... And likely for different reasons.... And most systems have an error low enough to where this has almost never been an issue.
What is the meaning of the "beating" that is reported to occur when a sine wave near 20kHz is sampled at 44100 Hz?
1) It shows that the sampling theorem doesn't work.
2) It shows that somebody forgot to use an anti-imaging filter
3) It shows that somebody put the probe at the wrong place in the circuit
4) It shows extra in-band sine waves that result from sampling errors.Once again, there is no good answer listed... The only way the "beats" would occur is if one chooses a D/A chip that is non-oversampling or utilizes a "time-resolute" digital filter....
And by the way.... How can someone "forget" to use an anti-imaging filter?? It would be like someone building a car and "forgetting" the wheels.... For unless one *expressly* specifies a non-OS D/A converter chip, the D/A chip has the anti-imaging filter *already* built in!!
> He obviously don't get nothing about sampling, or how digital recordings work, at least in any great degree,>...or you just makin' lies up?
Can anything you say be trusted?
What more can I say?Just answer the questions. If you get them right, and can explain your answers, I will cheerfully withdraw my claim that you don't know much about sampling.
I will then point out that you support misinformation about sampling even though you know better.
Take your choice.
...about me.You are unable to show any evidence for it.
You devise a test for me to take to show how smart you think you are. (You really do need to get over yourself, dork.)
And if I were to take your big ego-driven "test" and fail to get 100%, you think you would then have some justification for your previous lie about me.
Which you don't have now.
And you still won't apologize for your lie.
This shows you have absolutely NO integrity whatsoever.
You refuse to deal with the whipsaw you created when you launched into this discussion on dithering.Y'all answer, or not?
> when you launched into this discussion on dithering.>Not only did I NOT launch a discussion on dithering, I've NEVER once mentioned it in a single post.
You're hallucinating again, or you're nuts...take your pick.
Or is it the other half of your Jeckyll/Hyde personality talking, eh JJ?
Nothing more to say here.
...you clueless idiot, Silver JJ.Just show me a thread where I mentioned dithering. You can't find one.
You made up a lie and won't apologize.
You can't be trusted or believed.
You are scum.
And see the quotes. Y'all won't admit to the context you shot your mouth off in. That's pathetic. My neighbor's mule can do better.
If y'all don't know, or if y'all lept in to slur me in support of Krieger when you knew better.I can't tell which, but neither reads very well on y'all.
...your statement was a lie or you wouldn't need to try to find out.I'm waiting for your apology, liar.
...you'd be the loser, slick.
You know, there are a number of approaches y'all can take in a situation like this where you think you are correct and someone is mistaken. One would be to educate them (if you really know what y'all are talking about), provide some real information, a link or two, etc.
The other would be to act pompous and superior and start putiing the other person down and calling names.Which do you think might win you that contest y'all be mentioning, sport?
---If you knew the answers, you wouldn't say "think you are correct".
You are, there, clearly showing neutrality for a well-known, obvious set of facts regarding sampling.
I will conceded that you could, instead, be feigning neutrality in order to further some obscure, but unethical agenda. If so, then you are guilty of something worse than ignorance, you are guilty of deliberately supporting something you know is wrong. That is worse than ignorance, but if you agree that is the case, then I will withdraw my accusation of ignorance, and then accuse you of willfully spreading ignorance when you know better.
Take your choice. Your words, your choice, your own bed to lie in.
jj, you are the dork here.
Now why don't y'all teach yourself?Put your mouth where your meanie is.
Yes, jj. I am trying to put a 'name' which is "dork" to your behavior. I find it immature and wasteful of time and energy.
Recently, I have coined two terms for some of the behavior on this website. These are: 'dork' and 'dink'.
Now, you show 'dorky' behavior, because you hide behind a mask and make fun of minor mistakes of others, rather than really trying to help them.
SE is a 'dink', because he is always complaining that others appear to get away with inappropriate behavior on this website, and everybody picks on him, in particular, much like a little brother might.
I hope that pointing out this behavior might get you both to think twice about your approach.
Y'all should add something instead of call names, then y'all wouldn't be the biggest raging hypocrite on the block.
(nt)
Then again, I understand what the eye sees. Do y'all?
jj,why can't you just give us a good tutorial on digital and leave it alone? Do you have to put everyone down, just to make yourself look good? This is what I consider 'dorky' behavior.
I could do the same thing on DIYaudio when it comes to amp and preamp design. I see all kinds of 'minor' technical errors, but I don't get in everyone's face about it. It isn't worth it. I, too, have been insulted by some, when I have tried to help. I just don't make as big a deal out of it, as you have in your resentment, because you were insulted here in the past. Get over it.
"jj,why can't you just give us a good tutorial on digital and leave it alone?"I think he's simply unable to.... For if he was able, he'd never have to tell people to "study the material"....
Last I saw, jj tried to do this for y'all and y'all shouted him down.Just look at what Hansen had to say, and how many people (like you) defended him.
No wonder JJ left.
'Alas,poor jj, I did not know him well'. ( bad Shakespeare) ;-)
Y'all just shouted him down and called him the "DBT Mafia", last I heard.
(nt)
Does this Mkuller guy stalk y'all around, too?
If he is, he's not doing a terribly good job of it as I haven't really noticed.
Who is he, anyhow?
Some guy who used to write for TAS and currently sells medical oxygen.
He obviously don't get nothing about sampling, or how digital recordings work, at least in any great degree, he perpetuates a great load of quackery with his completely crocked claims that DBT's don't work for something-or-other (and that seems to change at his convenience), and he is willing to make egregious accusations (did you see where he insinuated that jj was fired, instead of retired, because of misconduct, or senility, or something like that).
Yeah, he's not terribly on the ball on a lot of things.
What does he have going for him...?
Emphysema patients?
se
jj is the only dork here, Mkuller is an OK guy. However, he is not an engineer. He makes his living in another way.
...tell me about Steve Eddy - who is he and what's his story?Has he designed anything other than a pair of interconnect cables?
I don't know much about SE. He claims that he is not college educated, or even finished high school. He seems to be self-taught fairly well, but has deep gaps in education and professional deportment. He has a real 'hard-on' with both Jon Risch and me, and I usually come to Jon's defense when he is attacked by SE. Jon sometimes helps me out as well in the same way. For the record, Jon R and I have never met each other personally, but we do talk on the phone once in a while.
SE keeps his past a secret, but he attacks the credentials of many others, when he thinks that he has a shot at ridiculing them. He is seldom successful at this, because he does not research his 'attacks' completely enough to see that he has no case, in the first place.
Mike, give me a call sometime, to catch up on old times.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
