[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
So the dithering just magically causes the quantization errors to
disappear?

Yes.

Where do they go?

They become noise.

So how is an error that's not sonically obnoxious no longer an error?

It moves from correlated noise (ie. distortion) to random noise. This is
a substantial improvement.

Noise up to the LSB is just fine. Distortion well below the LSB may be
audible.

With some tinkering and a Bessel function you can turn it into random noise
with a non-Gaussian distribution too, but my personal listening experiences
make me think this really isn't a good thing. I can't support that
theoretically, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

The CD's output is an analogue of the post-DAC signal,
regardless of how analogous that may be of the original
source material.
There is nothing digital about the output. With modern D/A
and dithering, real-world noise will completely mask any
quantization effects.

I see exactly what you're saying, though I don't agree.

So we're down to where the rubber meets the road. Tell me...

If I fed a complex, band-limited signal into an ADC, then properly
converted
it back from numbers -- and I had some magic way to overlap the waveforms
for close examination -- what, if any differences would I see, and what
would be the cause of the differences?

This is a roundabout way of stating the following... If the "restored" (I
refuse to say "reconstructed") signal is truly "analog", then any
amplitude
change, no matter how small, in the original must be reproduced in the
output. Otherwise, the output signal isn't analog.

OK. I understand what you are saying. If the reproduced signal is
different from the original signal, then it is digital.

No, that is NOT what I said. Stop being perverse.

It is time to queue up the Twilight Zone theme...

Herrmann or Constant?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
The fact that an analog representation of a finite set
of numbers can only (in a perfect noise free world) take
on a finite set of voltages does not alter that fact
that the voltage is an analog representation of the
number.

You obviously don't understand the difference between
analog and digital. Analog signals do not have a finite
set of voltages.

Right, real-world analog signals have probabilities. Real world digital
signals have exact values.

Sadly, analogue signals have only probabilities too. It's that kind of
world.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

If I fed a complex, band-limited signal into an ADC, then properly
converted
it back from numbers -- and I had some magic way to overlap the waveforms
for close examination -- what, if any differences would I see, and what
would be the cause of the differences?

This is a roundabout way of stating the following... If the "restored" (I
refuse to say "reconstructed") signal is truly "analog", then any
amplitude
change, no matter how small, in the original must be reproduced in the
output. Otherwise, the output signal isn't analog.

Correct, if you overlaped the input and output waveforms the
difference would be only random noise, just like an analog system.

That isn't what I said, but I do see your point.


And the dither does not just MASK the quantization errors, it elimiates
them...

Okay. So this, finally, is the issue that has to be resolved (in my mind, if
not in yours).

[William Sommerwerck]

Bottom line is that the output of a good 16 bit DAC is more precise and
stable and thus more continuous than just about any analog signal source.
Furthermore, DACs with 20 or more bit resolution are becoming more common
and economical to obtain.

But that's badly twisting the meaning of the word "continuous", Arny. After
all, a digital signal is directly proportional to the original analog
signal, and varies with it -- but you wouldn't say it's analog.

[William Sommerwerck]

I still think "I'm right, you're wrong", but we've really narrowed down the
question to its most-basic issue.

Let's let it drop for the time being, because I want to dig into this some
more.

And -- in case you're wondering -- I do not lie awake at night trying to
come up with ways to harrass this group.

[William Sommerwerck]

Being an analog signal, the output of a DAC can have any of an infinte
number of levels. Furthermore the levels are not exact but can only be
specified as probabilities.

But are they the original values?

[hank alrich]

anahata wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:00:41 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"I know what kind of a woman you are. I'm just trying to settle on a
price."

The version of this story that I'm familiar with involved a famous
writer,

George Bernard Shaw, and the version of the punch line I have is "we've
already established that: I'm just haggling over the price"

I believe that the common generally agreed-upon usage is "Digital to
Analog Converter". In practice is literally true. Forget all of the
pontification, go into the lab and see what happens.

Yes, apparently we are being told that the output of a D-A converter is
digital...

I figure one can answer this question using a pair of headphones.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Dithering doesn't mask quantization errors. It simply moves them around
to
make them more like random noise.

Furthermore, what makes digital "digital" is quantization error. If there
were no quantization error (an impossibility), signal values would be
able
to vary continuously, and you would have an analog signal.

Thank you. The signal from a DAC can vary continuously within the
bandwidth of the chosen sampling parameters.

The output of a DAC has only a finite number of levels. It cannot vary
continuously.

Get thee to thy bench and verify your statement.

Or not. But if you are unwilling to do so, I call bull****.

Play a sine wave out the CD player (take the output from the analog
jacks, not the optical output) and look it over on a scope. How's it
look, BIll?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Isn't there anyone out there with the least understanding of how digital
recording and playback actually work?

Apparently no one but you. I'm amazed the whole process has gotten this
far without your help.

Meanwhile, subject your conjecture to test in the physical world and let
us know how it went.

You still have explained/justified your confusion between time sampling and
amplitude quantization.

To the bench, buddy. Show your work. Enough conjecture.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

jwvm wrote:

On Oct 20, 12:19 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
The CD's output is an analogue of the post-DAC signal,
regardless of how analogous that may be of the original
source material.
There is nothing digital about the output. With modern D/A
and dithering, real-world noise will completely mask any
quantization effects.

I see exactly what you're saying, though I don't agree.

So we're down to where the rubber meets the road. Tell me...

If I fed a complex, band-limited signal into an ADC, then properly converted
it back from numbers -- and I had some magic way to overlap the waveforms
for close examination -- what, if any differences would I see, and what
would be the cause of the differences?

This is a roundabout way of stating the following... If the "restored" (I
refuse to say "reconstructed") signal is truly "analog", then any amplitude
change, no matter how small, in the original must be reproduced in the
output. Otherwise, the output signal isn't analog.

OK. I understand what you are saying. If the reproduced signal is
different from the original signal, then it is digital. So by that
definition, any analog recording that does not reproduce the input
signal exactly is also digital. Since no analog recording technology
ever reproduces the input signal exactly, all analog recording
techniques are also digital. So we have had digital recordings ever
since Edison invented the phonograph. It is time to queue up the
Twilight Zone theme......

damn! To think I sold the old Studer, not realizing I already had a
digital machine!

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

No, that is NOT what I said. Stop being perverse.

Your mirror is backwards.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

A properly reconstructed dithered digital system
IS THE SAME AS an analog system.

So the dithering just magically causes the quantization errors to disappear?
Where do they go?

They are, obviously, transferred directly into your own imagination
where they can be handily recalled at any time for insertion into any
signal to which you wish to listen.

But don't feed them to an oscilloscope, because that removes them from
the Universe, and leaves you completely without recallable quantization
errors.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Arny Krueger wrote:

I understand that this is a different meaning of "vary continuously" than
you probably meant, but it is the truth.

Being an analog signal, the output of a DAC includes noise. If the noise
has
non-zero bandwidth, and it always does, then it does vary continuously,
even
if the data word being converted remains the same. The continual
variations
are due to the noise.

Bottom line is that the output of a good 16 bit DAC is
more precise and stable and thus more continuous than
just about any analog signal source. Furthermore, DACs
with 20 or more bit resolution are becoming more common
and economical to obtain.

But that's badly twisting the meaning of the word
"continuous", Arny.

That's what I meant when I said above:

I understand that this is a different meaning of "vary continuously" than
you probably meant, but it is the truth.

After all, a digital signal is
directly proportional to the original analog signal, and
varies with it -- but you wouldn't say it's analog.

??????????????/

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
Being an analog signal, the output of a DAC can have any
of an infinite number of levels. Furthermore the levels
are not exact but can only be specified as probabilities.

But are they the original values?

No, but the output of a non-trivial analog circuit isn't the original
values, either.

If you want exactly the original values, you're stuck in places like the
digital domain.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" wrote in message

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Dithering doesn't mask quantization errors. It simply
moves them around to make them more like random noise.

Furthermore, what makes digital "digital" is
quantization error. If there were no quantization
error (an impossibility), signal values would be able
to vary continuously, and you would have an analog
signal.

Thank you. The signal from a DAC can vary continuously
within the bandwidth of the chosen sampling parameters.

The output of a DAC has only a finite number of levels.
It cannot vary continuously.

Get thee to thy bench and verify your statement.

Or not. But if you are unwilling to do so, I call
bull****.

Play a sine wave out the CD player (take the output from
the analog jacks, not the optical output) and look it
over on a scope. How's it look, BIll?

Agreed.

The output of a CD player playing a CD with a sine wave on it is one the
best sine waves around. If you want something even better, play a similar
24/192 DVD-A track.

AFAIK , there is no commercial purely analog gear that can make sine waves
that are any better.

For example, some of the best audio signal generators and analyzers around
are by Audio Precision and are digital at their core.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

I still think "I'm right, you're wrong", but we've really
narrowed down the question to its most-basic issue.

Remind me again about the last time you admitted you were wrong, William.
;-)

Let's let it drop for the time being, because I want to
dig into this some more.

And -- in case you're wondering -- I do not lie awake at
night trying to come up with ways to harass this group.

Actually William, you sometimes come up with some pretty fair ways for some
of us on the other side to make ourselves look good. ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

One of the following is possibly true...

I'm not expressing myself clearly.
People cannot understand plain English.
People can understand plain English, but they deliberately misinterpret
what I'm saying.

The most-likely explanation is this... People assume that anyone who
questions basic assumptions is either an idiot, or is trying to stir up
trouble. The possibility that neither is true never crosses their minds.
They feel obliged to protect their own beliefs, for all the reasons that
humans do so.

What is most-interesting to me, though, is that most of the people in this
group have never bothered to think through what they believe. They think
that because they took a college course and passed the test, or read a book
by some "expert" that they truly understand what they in fact, only know.

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk with --
usually because they have little actual understanding of anything. Arny, why
do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He questioned almost everything.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Arny, why do you think I
enjoyed JGH so much? He questioned almost everything.

If you have a decent memory, you only need to question a given point once.
;-)

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:45:25 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

One of the following is possibly true...

I'm not expressing myself clearly.
People cannot understand plain English.
People can understand plain English, but they deliberately misinterpret
what I'm saying.

The most-likely explanation is this... People assume that anyone who
questions basic assumptions is either an idiot, or is trying to stir up
trouble. The possibility that neither is true never crosses their minds.
They feel obliged to protect their own beliefs, for all the reasons that
humans do so.

What is most-interesting to me, though, is that most of the people in this
group have never bothered to think through what they believe. They think
that because they took a college course and passed the test, or read a book
by some "expert" that they truly understand what they in fact, only know.

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk with --
usually because they have little actual understanding of anything. Arny, why
do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He questioned almost everything.


And do you believe that what you have been doing here is questioning
the orthodoxy to see if it remains strong?

d

[William Sommerwerck]

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk
with -- usually because they have little actual understanding of
anything. Arny, why do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He
questioned almost everything.

And do you believe that what you have been doing here is questioning
the orthodoxy to see if it remains strong?

Only to the extent that I like to poke people who accept things without
making the effort to "digest" and understand them.

The point I raised was serious, and is a legitimate question anyone trying
to unscramble digital technology might reasonably ask. Indeed, you were the
one who prompted me to investigate the question (though it had crossed my
mind before).

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps that's
my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked an "Aha!"
reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits together, and makes
sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will continue to investigate until
I feel I either understand what you've told me, or I can thoroughly explain
why it's wrong.

[William Sommerwerck]

Arny, why do you think I
enjoyed JGH so much? He questioned almost everything.

If you have a decent memory, you only need to question
a given point once. ;-)

"Everything" doesn't necessarily mean repeated questions about the same
topic. And how many times have you thought you understood something, then
realized you really didn't?

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:28:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk
with -- usually because they have little actual understanding of
anything. Arny, why do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He
questioned almost everything.

And do you believe that what you have been doing here is questioning
the orthodoxy to see if it remains strong?

Only to the extent that I like to poke people who accept things without
making the effort to "digest" and understand them.

Nobody who has responded to you here fits that description. We have
all studied the subject thoroughly, made the measurements, designed
the devices etc. Nobody here - apart from you - is impressed by
authority. In an earlier post you expressed distaste at having to
agree with me over the Nyquist rate. Had you been a true
scientist/engineer that thought would not have occurred to you. You
would simply have passed on your understanding of the scientific
model. This isn't about people - it is about what happens.

The point I raised was serious, and is a legitimate question anyone trying
to unscramble digital technology might reasonably ask. Indeed, you were the
one who prompted me to investigate the question (though it had crossed my
mind before).

No, that simply isn't true. You weren't questioning anything, you were
simply asserting an indefensible position ad nauseam.

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps that's
my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked an "Aha!"
reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits together, and makes
sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will continue to investigate until
I feel I either understand what you've told me, or I can thoroughly explain
why it's wrong.


That is indeed your own fault. Before you started stating as fact
things we all know (not believe, know) to be nonsense, perhaps you
could have at least done the maths if not the experiments. The maths
alone is sufficient. Did you read my paper yet? Read it, but don't
take my word for it - just use it to prompt your own investigations.
If you find errors in my work, tell me. If I have made errors I will
be delighted to know, because that will mean I have learned something
new. But don't simply adopt a contrary position because your intuition
tells you that the orthodoxy is wrong. That just is not good enough.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps
that's
my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked an "Aha!"
reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits together, and makes
sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will continue to investigate
until
I feel I either understand what you've told me, or I can thoroughly
explain
why it's wrong.

That is indeed your own fault. Before you started stating as fact things
we all know (not believe, know) to be nonsense, perhaps you could
have at least done the maths if not the experiments. The maths alone
is sufficient. Did you read my paper yet? Read it, but don't take my
word for it -- just use it to prompt your own investigations.

I read it, and saw nothing in it obviously wrong. I also saw nothing that
answered my questions. You have not demonstrated that the signal is truly
analog -- that is, that samples that don't fall exactly on a quantization
level are reproduced at their original level.


If you find errors in my work, tell me. If I have made errors I will
be delighted to know, because that will mean I have learned something
new. But don't simply adopt a contrary position because your intuition
tells you that the orthodoxy is wrong. That just is not good enough.

Uh... Mr. Pearce... Where do you think new ideas come from? Shall I quote
Einstein?

I clearly explained why I thought what I thought was correct, to the point
of developing the idea step by step. You couldn't be bothered to read it,
because you knew it was wrong. I was then told I was wrong, and had a lot of
regurgitated orthodoxy vomited at me as proof.

As I said, I've reached the point where I understand the fundamental nature
of my question, and I will continue to investigate on my own. When you can
_explain_ what is really going on, and why, I'll be delighted to listen to
you.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:10:40 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps
that's
my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked an "Aha!"
reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits together, and makes
sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will continue to investigate
until
I feel I either understand what you've told me, or I can thoroughly
explain
why it's wrong.

That is indeed your own fault. Before you started stating as fact things
we all know (not believe, know) to be nonsense, perhaps you could
have at least done the maths if not the experiments. The maths alone
is sufficient. Did you read my paper yet? Read it, but don't take my
word for it -- just use it to prompt your own investigations.

I read it, and saw nothing in it obviously wrong. I also saw nothing that
answered my questions. You have not demonstrated that the signal is truly
analog -- that is, that samples that don't fall exactly on a quantization
level are reproduced at their original level.


It was a paper explaining dither which I wrote about five years ago.
It wasn't a response to your question. It does however go quite some
way to explaining why and how quantized steps disappear from the
output of a DAC. You can see it in the two mathematically derived
graphs.


If you find errors in my work, tell me. If I have made errors I will
be delighted to know, because that will mean I have learned something
new. But don't simply adopt a contrary position because your intuition
tells you that the orthodoxy is wrong. That just is not good enough.

Uh... Mr. Pearce... Where do you think new ideas come from? Shall I quote
Einstein?


The ideas don't matter. There are thousands of them out there - just
go into any English pub. It is the result of the scientific method
that matters. Whether there is a name attached or not is irrelevant.
Of course if a new paradigm results, the originator (like Einstein)
will achieve a degree of fame. That does not mean that what he says
about anything else carries any greater weight as a result.

I clearly explained why I thought what I thought was correct, to the point
of developing the idea step by step. You couldn't be bothered to read it,
because you knew it was wrong. I was then told I was wrong, and had a lot of
regurgitated orthodoxy vomited at me as proof.

I read it, but could see the errors from even the lightest skim
reading. You hadn't even grasped the basics.

As I said, I've reached the point where I understand the fundamental nature
of my question, and I will continue to investigate on my own. When you can
_explain_ what is really going on, and why, I'll be delighted to listen to
you.


You need to find that out for yourself (like everyone here has done,
whether they have been taught it or not.

d

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

This is beyond my comprehension.

But not only this.


Isn't there anyone out there with the least understanding of how
digital recording and playback actually work?

Very few with your 'understanding' of it.


geoff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Bottom line is that the output of a good 16 bit DAC is more precise
and stable and thus more continuous than just about any analog
signal source. Furthermore, DACs with 20 or more bit resolution are
becoming more common and economical to obtain.

But that's badly twisting the meaning of the word "continuous", Arny.
After all, a digital signal is directly proportional to the original
analog signal, and varies with it -- but you wouldn't say it's analog.

If that 'step' is not discernable because it is below the naural (or added)
background noise level, then it is to all intents and purposes analogue and
continuously variable.

geoff.

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
So the dithering just magically causes the quantization errors to
disappear?

Yes.

Where do they go?

They become noise.

So how is an error that's not sonically obnoxious no longer an error?

Because nobody can tell that there is an error, apart from being purely
theoretical and pedantic, and wrong for good measure.

geoff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
One of the following is possibly true...

I'm not expressing myself clearly.
People cannot understand plain English.
People can understand plain English, but they deliberately
misinterpret what I'm saying.

The most-likely explanation is this... People assume that anyone who
questions basic assumptions is either an idiot, or is trying to stir
up trouble. The possibility that neither is true never crosses their
minds. They feel obliged to protect their own beliefs, for all the
reasons that humans do so.

What is most-interesting to me, though, is that most of the people in
this group have never bothered to think through what they believe.
They think that because they took a college course and passed the
test, or read a book by some "expert" that they truly understand what
they in fact, only know.

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk with
-- usually because they have little actual understanding of anything.
Arny, why do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He questioned almost
everything.

Equally, idiots seldom consider themselves to be idiots. I am not
suggesting that you should be classified as an idiot.

geoff

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to talk
with -- usually because they have little actual understanding of
anything. Arny, why do you think I enjoyed JGH so much? He
questioned almost everything.

And do you believe that what you have been doing here is questioning
the orthodoxy to see if it remains strong?

Only to the extent that I like to poke people who accept things
without making the effort to "digest" and understand them.

The point I raised was serious, and is a legitimate question anyone
trying to unscramble digital technology might reasonably ask. Indeed,
you were the one who prompted me to investigate the question (though
it had crossed my mind before).

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps
that's my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked
an "Aha!" reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits
together, and makes sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will
continue to investigate until I feel I either understand what you've
told me, or I can thoroughly explain why it's wrong.

Is the world really a sphere ? I think convention wisdom is, let's say,
suspect on this issue.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

It was a paper explaining dither which I wrote about five years ago.
It wasn't a response to your question. It does however go quite some
way to explaining why and how quantized steps disappear from the
output of a DAC. You can see it in the two mathematically derived
graphs.

I'll look at it more closely and see what I can glean from it. (I'm not
being sarcastic.)


The ideas don't matter. There are thousands of them out there --
just go into any English pub. It is the result of the scientific method
that matters. Whether there is a name attached or not is irrelevant.
Of course, if a new paradigm results, the originator (like Einstein)
will achieve a degree of fame. That does not mean that what he
says about anything else carries any greater weight as a result.

No, but there is such a thing as intuition. And I categorically reject "the
scientific method" as being a full description of the scientific process.


You need to find that out for yourself (like everyone here has done,
whether they have been taught it or not).

It would be nice if none of us had to... If there were documentation that
really dug into this -- or any other subject -- and explained it at not only
the deepest technical level, but the "philosophical" level.

I don't ask for "forgiveness", because I did nothing wrong, in any sense, at
any level. But... don't tell me you've never seen books or articles with
gross misrepresentations of what you know to be true, from people who are
supposed to be experts. Contrary to your claim, I detest "experts". I rarely
refer to them, and when I explain something, I try to do so on a level that
will make sense to the attentive reader -- rather than saying "that's the
way it is".

When someone says something I'm fairly certain is wrong, I often try to
figure out /why/ they don't understand it. Did you, Mr. Pearce, spend even
one second asking yourself "Why is he saying this?" You did... Except your
answer was "He's an idiot!", not "Oh. I see how someone who hasn't
considered XYZ might make that mistake." *

To me, this suggests that you don't really understand what you're talking
about. Not on a fundamental, nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts level. The point I
raised should have been enough to get any reasonable person at least briefly
confused. "Could he possibly be correct? Does the conversion process
/really/ remove the quantization steps correctly?" Confusion is a good
thing -- it encourages us to think.

* This is not an admission of incorrectness.

[William Sommerwerck]

If that 'step' is not discernable because it is below the natural
(or added) background noise level, then it is to all intents and
purposes analogue and continuously variable.

That makes perfect sense -- but I'm not yet willing to accept it.

[William Sommerwerck]

People who have never questioned anything aren't any fun to
talk with -- usually because they have little actual understanding
of anything. Arny, why do you think I enjoyed JGH so much?
He questioned almost everything.

Equally, idiots seldom consider themselves to be idiots. I am not
suggesting that you should be classified as an idiot.

No, but I'm fully aware that I can be wrong. My friends know this, which is
why they respect my opinions.

[William Sommerwerck]

I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps
that's my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked
an "Aha!" reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits
together, and makes sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will
continue to investigate until I feel I either understand what you've
told me, or I can thoroughly explain why it's wrong.

Is the world really a sphere? I think convention wisdom is, let's say,
suspect on this issue.

How do you define "sphere"? The Earth is, in the "macro" sense, but is
supposedly slightly "pear-shaped" on a finer level.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:55:01 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

It was a paper explaining dither which I wrote about five years ago.
It wasn't a response to your question. It does however go quite some
way to explaining why and how quantized steps disappear from the
output of a DAC. You can see it in the two mathematically derived
graphs.

I'll look at it more closely and see what I can glean from it. (I'm not
being sarcastic.)


The ideas don't matter. There are thousands of them out there --
just go into any English pub. It is the result of the scientific method
that matters. Whether there is a name attached or not is irrelevant.
Of course, if a new paradigm results, the originator (like Einstein)
will achieve a degree of fame. That does not mean that what he
says about anything else carries any greater weight as a result.

No, but there is such a thing as intuition. And I categorically reject "the
scientific method" as being a full description of the scientific process.


You need to find that out for yourself (like everyone here has done,
whether they have been taught it or not).

It would be nice if none of us had to... If there were documentation that
really dug into this -- or any other subject -- and explained it at not only
the deepest technical level, but the "philosophical" level.

I don't ask for "forgiveness", because I did nothing wrong, in any sense, at
any level. But... don't tell me you've never seen books or articles with
gross misrepresentations of what you know to be true, from people who are
supposed to be experts. Contrary to your claim, I detest "experts". I rarely
refer to them, and when I explain something, I try to do so on a level that
will make sense to the attentive reader -- rather than saying "that's the
way it is".

When someone says something I'm fairly certain is wrong, I often try to
figure out /why/ they don't understand it. Did you, Mr. Pearce, spend even
one second asking yourself "Why is he saying this?" You did... Except your
answer was "He's an idiot!", not "Oh. I see how someone who hasn't
considered XYZ might make that mistake." *

Unreasonable and grossly unfair. Most of my posts have been concerned
with the business of explaining to you why you were wrong. Any
occasional outbursts of frustration of the type you describe have been
rare and born of frustration.

To me, this suggests that you don't really understand what you're talking
about. Not on a fundamental, nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts level. The point I
raised should have been enough to get any reasonable person at least briefly
confused. "Could he possibly be correct? Does the conversion process
/really/ remove the quantization steps correctly?" Confusion is a good
thing -- it encourages us to think.

* This is not an admission of incorrectness.


No, the point you raised was so trivially and obviously incorrect that
it was very unlikely to encourage such thought. As for my
understanding, you have no idea of its depth, and frankly you are not
in any position to pass judgment, so I will take that as gratuitous
rudeness.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
As I said, I've reached the point where I understand the fundamental nature
of my question, and I will continue to investigate on my own. When you can
_explain_ what is really going on, and why, I'll be delighted to listen to
you.

A lot of people have been answering these questions over and over again
for the past twenty years, which is why so many people are angry at you
for bringing them up again.

There is a whole section of the FAQ which exists specifically to keep
people from bringing them up any more.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

When someone says something I'm fairly certain is wrong, I often try to
figure out /why/ they don't understand it. Did you, Mr. Pearce, spend
even
one second asking yourself "Why is he saying this?" You did... Except
your
answer was "He's an idiot!", not "Oh. I see how someone who hasn't
considered XYZ might make that mistake." *

Unreasonable and grossly unfair. Most of my posts have been concerned
with the business of explaining to you why you were wrong. Any
occasional outbursts of frustration of the type you describe have been
rare and born of frustration.

To me, this suggests that you don't really understand what you're talking
about. Not on a fundamental, nitty-gritty, nuts-and-bolts level. The
point I
raised should have been enough to get any reasonable person at least
briefly
confused. "Could he possibly be correct? Does the conversion process
/really/ remove the quantization steps correctly?" Confusion is a good
thing -- it encourages us to think.

No, the point you raised was so trivially and obviously incorrect that
it was very unlikely to encourage such thought. As for my
understanding, you have no idea of its depth, and frankly you are not
in any position to pass judgment, so I will take that as gratuitous
rudeness.

I'm a technical writer -- explaining stuff so that it makes sense is my
stock in trade. When someone else cannot do that, I see no reason not to
point it out, however rude it might seem. You have not done it at the level
I expect.

You're conveniently forgetting who raised the question in the first place,
and insisted that I answer it.

The question -- is the audio output of a CD player analog or digital? -- is
exactly the sort of koan-ish question * that ought to make any inquisitive
person think. What is the point of asking the question if the "correct"
answer ** is so obvious?

There's nothing trivial about the point I raised, because it concerns
whether or not the output of the player can truly vary in a continuous --
rather than quantized -- fashion. And I don't see it as being obvious.

Mr. Pearce, most people think that smapling a signal makes it digital, and
they will argue with you about it. And that includes engineers. Why should I
assume that anyone who professes to be knowledgable actually is? I don't
expect others to believe it of me. (I can already hear your snide response
to that.)

Common belief is not truth.

* "English-speaking non-Zen practitioners sometimes use koan to refer to an
unanswerable question or a meaningless statement. However, in Zen practice,
a koan is not meaningless, and teachers often do expect students to present
an appropriate response when asked about a koan. Even so, a koan is not a
riddle or a puzzle. Appropriate responses to a koan may vary according to
circumstances; different teachers may demand different responses to a given
koan, and a fixed answer cannot be correct in every circumstance. One of the
most common recorded comments by a teacher on a disciple's answer is: "Even
though that is true, if you do not know it yourself it does you no good."
The master is looking not for an answer in a specific form, but for evidence
that the disciple has actually grasped the state of mind expressed by the
koan itself."

** which has not yet been established -- in my mind, anyway

[PStamler]

If there has ever been a stupider discussion on RAP I don't recall it.

What comes out of the audio output of a CD player is analog audio --
that is, it has more than two possible output levels. What comes out
of the digital output is a digital signal -- it has exactly two
possible levels (when working right), high and low.

Now quit wasting our time.

Peace,
Paul

[Richard Crowley]

"PStamler" wrote ...
If there has ever been a stupider discussion on RAP I don't recall it.

What comes out of the audio output of a CD player is analog audio --
that is, it has more than two possible output levels. What comes out
of the digital output is a digital signal -- it has exactly two
possible levels (when working right), high and low.

Now quit wasting our time.

"Binary" is a subset of "digital". :-)

[Geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I've never seen a detailed discussion of this issue, though perhaps
that's my own fault. None of the responses given here have provoked
an "Aha!" reaction -- the sense that everything suddenly fits
together, and makes sense at the deepest level. As I said, I will
continue to investigate until I feel I either understand what you've
told me, or I can thoroughly explain why it's wrong.

Is the world really a sphere? I think convention wisdom is, let's
say, suspect on this issue.

How do you define "sphere"? The Earth is, in the "macro" sense, but is
supposedly slightly "pear-shaped" on a finer level.

But closer to a sphere than a flat disk. Maybe.

geoff