[David Nebenzahl]

On 10/27/2009 12:18 AM Don Pearce spake thus:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:01 -0700, Beta_Carotene
wrote:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/25/2009 1:59 PM Bag of Peanuts spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

The only way this could work would be if you could somehow get an
*absolutely perfect* copy of the noise to be removed from the
signal+noise recording. But of course that is impossible.

When it comes to sound, there's no such thing as "perfect anything" [...]

That's just the *point*, you nimrod.

I wouldn't want to do any "subtracting" when XOR works so much better.

Please explain how XOR would work "so much better" than subtraction
using the formula I gave:

[S + N] - N = S

where [S + N] is the signal plus noise, S is the signal only, and N is
the noise.

If you really think that 1+1 gives you the same result that 1 OR 1
gives you, then no amount of arguing will convince you that S-N is
any different than S XOR N.

How would you use XOR to remove noise (N) from [S + N]?

I can't wait to hear your explanation. This oughta be good.

Last question: Are you a troll, as some have accused you of being? Or
are you posting this stuff in earnest?

The real problem here is that there is no N. What you have is two
terms, N1 and N2. So the equation now goes

[S + N1] - N2 = ?

And the answer is?

If it were actually possible to record the identical N from two
places, the equation would work quite nicely. It isn't

Well, for the sake of argument I (not the nym-shifter) proposed to
assume the same N, while taking pains to point out that this was
strictly a theoretical construct that would in no way exist in the real
world.

So using my original construct ([S + N] - N = S), there's no way that
using XOR instead of subtraction is going to get you there. The
nym-shifter just seems to have XOR on the brain for some reason. (Quite
possibly XOR *does* work in a similar circumstance in video work: I
don't know.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism