Arny Krueger said:
I never claimed that the standard definitions were invalid.
Yes you did. And everyone who has disagreed with me in
this thread did. That is what this thread has been
about. Why do you deny what you have argued?
I did say that
some of your uses of them was tortured, and you agreed. So, since we are in
You said that, I did not agree. Why do you repeatedly
claim somebody else make *your* statements?
agreement that your use of some of these definitions was tortured, where's
the beef?
The beef is that you are dishonest. I've been using
standard definitions, and I have extensive background in
the application of those definitions over an extremely
wide range of practical applications. (One hell of a
lot more experience that can be obtain in the "high
fidelity audio" field.)
You have claimed that people who do high fidelity audio
are different than the telephone industry and have their
own definitions. In fact PCM, and virtually every other
major technical aspect of high fidelity audio, came from
the telephone industry. Your background is meager if
you are unaware of the origination of the technologies,
and certainly those who've only been exposed to high
fidelity audio do have limited exposure.
Just another one of your straw man arguments.
What kind of credibility are you gaining by making the
irrational statement that you do? You say, boo, and
then two articles later claim I said it.
That isn't logical, and you've peppered all of your
recent responses with that sort of nonsense.
Actually, I have quite a bit of crediblity. Just not with you!
Not with me and not with anyone who can follow a logical
thread and understand it!
The paradox is a creation of your own mind, Floyd.
That was *exactly* what was claimed, and you have said
those people are experts and are correct. Hilarious is
a very good description. (Particularly given the total
lack of logical reasoning demonstrated by you and the
others who don't like standard definitions.)
And I never objected to the definitions, no matter how many times you claim
otherwise, Floyd. Talk about declining crediblity!
Read what you wrote. You have claimed I tortured the
definitions. You have claimed they don't apply outside
the telephone industry, you have claimed that everyone
who told me they are invalid was correct.
Do you know what you are saying?
Read what you wrote (heh, and look up the definition of
"invalid").
In fact they seem clear enough to me.
Then you'd know that I've been spot on right from the
start, and that all of this bullshit about there being
other definitions is dead wrong. But you've said
otherwise, so apparently it is not clear to you at all.
And now you refuse to even discuss the terms and want to
post nothing but fabricated personal insults.
I don't need any supporting evidence to agree with your reference, do I?
Exactly what I have been arguing from the start. The
references I provided are correct, they are
authoritative, and the definitions are valid.
If you agree to that, then you must agree to virtually
everything I've been saying from the start.
If not, you are confused. Exceedingly confused.
We're wrong all the time. That's one reason why we can talk about so many
things so long.
Funny how you can't show even one major technical part
of this discussion that I was wrong about. You are now
claiming to agree with me totally, yet you post piles of
personal insults that have nothing to do with the
technical issues, and claim that I am wrong.
Wrong about what? I posted the standard definitions for
digital and analog! They *are* correct. First you
claim they aren't, now you say you don't disagree with
me.
Do you have any idea what you are saying?
Where did I say that audio is unique?
Audio does provide some fairly unique experiences, like working with say,
high end audiophiles. But I don't know if they are totally unique
experiences.
Not audio. Audio is about a relatively narrow bandwidth, but one that is
reproduced rather precisely.
Probably. I don't know of any other analog medium that is as dynamic range
conscious as high fidelity audio. Got any in mind?
The fact that Floyd seems unaware of the relationship between low noise and
high resolution might be suspected, based on the last two comments.
Make that the last three comments.
Definately not. High quality video wins over audio, all the time.
No comparison between the error rate tolerance of audio and general computer
data. The latter demands basically total perfection, while a modest BER is
tolerable with audio.
True, but as I explained before, it has its moments, and it has its points
where people with little hands-on experience with it expose themselves.
So your statements about people who work with high
fidelity audio were crapola. They don't have any
experience that is unique. In fact the requirements for
the telephone industry span virtually every technical
aspect that is used in high fidelity audio, and then
goes farther.
A person with extensive hands on experience in all parts
of the telephone industry has so much more depth that is
is silly for you to make such comparisons, because what
is exposed is *your* lack of technical understanding.
Our mills might not grind a lot of grain, but they grind exceedingly fine.
Stick with baking bread if you don't have enough
background to discuss the technology that is on topic.
