If both they and the one making the call are in public, then yes, he is a good judge of who should be on the phone or not: the ones able to keep a conversation brief, or of sufficiently low volume that they don't bother anyone.
Heh. I'm not saying Sennheiser sells bad stuff; just that if it were worth it to you, you probably could have picked up the same quality headphones at 20-40% cheaper.
If you don't care about that, you are absolutely right. Me personally, I feel deceived somewhat by this practice of selling OEM components under a high-end brand name to extract more money from me, so I research the OEMs and buy white-brand models of the same equipment. But that's due to my hangups with certain marketing tactics
Well said. Let me pitch in: I have a background of 11 years of classical guitar, and I like to listen to classical music. I can spot a lossily encoded file at bitrates that create a significantly better than 50% compression over FLAC, which is why I carry my classical stuff as FLAC.
I cannot, however, hear a quality difference on the same equipment using better than 48/16 sampling.
No, better DACs will fix it. A typical consumer grade player may well have a lousy cheap DAC to eke out a few more microcents of profit for the manufacturer.
I've done comparison listening using FLAC on mobile media players, and the quality of the DACs used is the distinguishing characteristic, closely followed by the quality of the amplifier. The winner is still Cowon, whose iAudio range is well-known for high-quality DACs, and still my favourite to carry classical music on.
BS. If the overtones of a flute high C and a piccolo high C are both under 22Khz, then sampling at twice that will catch all the overtones, and replaying the sample at the same rate will perfectly reproduce them.
And if the overtones are over 22Khz, but their lower-order harmonics aren't, the sampling will pick up the harmonics and reproduce them perfectly, even without the existence of the original overtone.
There is no subjectivity in that. An oscilliscope will show you that the overtones and/or their harmonics are all there.
The only step that decides whether or not the overtones have any influence is the quality of the low-pass filter. At 44Khz that can be a bit iffy, so using 48Khz to get a little more headroom is nice, but in practice you won't be able to hear a difference with anything above that.
The Nyquist Theorem says that the waveform will be perfectly replicated at if it is at half or lower the sampling frequency. In other words, the shape of the waveform that can be perfectly replicated at 192Khz is a 96Khz waveform at its highest. No human being will be able to hear that.
Theoretically, lower harmonics could be present in the signal, but if the source waveform gets sampled at less than 192Khz, the harmonics, being below the Nyquist threshold, will get sampled perfectly and remain.
In other words, whoever taught you was talking nonsense.
You've fallen for the marketing scam. Sennheiser just uses OEM parts and stamps their own name on it. I've lost my faith in that brand finding out that Creative sold the same OEM part for half the price.
The distorted guitars, hi-hats and cymbals in heavy metal, and the high notes (and harmonics) of the first violin parts in a string orchestra contain a lot of information in the high end. These are the parts I listen to when judging a lossily compressed file.
With a bad ADC/filter/DAC combination (or a single bad part in that entire chain), you will hear ugly distortions. However, given most studio equipment, this is a theoretical problem, not the reality GP makes it out to be.
In most cases, for listening purposes 16/44 will do just fine; 16/48 is better, 24/96 is for all practical purposes perfect, and more is overkill.
Wikipedia gives the link to the actual text of the law; it sounds very reasonable in fact. According to my reading, and giving a simplified translation, the French do not forbid moving from government to the private sector, they forbid taking a job in an enterprise that you were previously overseeing.
Of course, the question is why would Wikipedia summarise the law that badly? Although perhaps that may not be so surprising, given the largely 'teenage libertarian' nature of the editors.
Passport has already been under investigation by the EU. Perhaps not coincidentially, none of Microsoft's grandiose plans of a complete identity solution for the entire web panned out.
Bugger, I thought I had posted a reply yesterday, but that was lost, it seems.
But you are right, I got the name wrong. It is still the prime body tasked with inquiring into matters damaging to the faith and or the church, so I will take the name change as just a marketing effort. Then again, I'm a heretic anyway.
In the US with its many crazy denominations who insist on their, ahem, unique interpretations of the Bible your statement might hold. However, over here in Europe, the position of reverend in a Protestant congregation requires the minimum of a Masters in Theology from an accredited university.
Now, you may scoff at religion, and that's your right, but you don't get to own the facts: a Masters of Theology from a University of the calibre of, say, Tuebingen, requires a lot of non-religious studies. I know that at least in the Netherlands, Kampen, which serves many smaller denominations, a lot of fundamentalists among them, requires at least Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, plus some Archaeology 101. That's not a combination for feeble brains, I think you would agree?
Aka the Congegration for the Defence of the Faith. Just call it what it is: The Holy Inquisition.
No, it is not as scary as it sounds. The Inquisition is basically the Internal Affairs department of the church, and giving them jurisdiction over the pedo-priest scandals is logical. But still, call it by its name.
Both programs show what Eric means by Bazaar development: "I throw out my half-assed code, other people spend years fixing my bugs and design flaws, and I take the credit."
I was not surprised when I first heard this, and it still surprises me not at all.
One of Tolkien's avowed aims was to instill in his readers a sense of joy and wonder at meeting creatures other than ourselves.
Now take Asimov, who deliberately took our worst fear of technology, that it would turn on us, and then turning it around, telling us stories about how technology might give use strange creatures that we can convers with and that are friendly.
Now also take into account that Tolkien feared technology a lot. He'd seen industrial slaughter on the Somme, he'd seen industrialisation destroy his beloved Midlands countryside, and he was not shy in expressing his fear and disgust.
And now a kindred soul, a writer who wants to show joy in contact with the Other, shows up, and gives a bright side of Tolkien's greatest fear.
I don't think Asimov is as great as some people make him out to be, but that sense of joy in just simple contact, that is something he did well. Lijeh and Daneel are one of fiction's greatest friendships.
Actually, you are right. For such a fallacy to be there, you would have to be making an actual argument. But since the intelligence in your utterances doesn't raise any higher than Alex's, I'm going to ignore you from now on.
Addendum to my other post: of course, trust a denier to take a snarky expression of exasperation as an actual endorsement of scientific policy. You guys don't just misunderstand science, you can't handle language beyond primary school level either./p
Actually, yes they did. You don't see anyone actually debating the creationist arguments on its merits, now do you?
And saying, 'your arguments are unscientific' and refusing serious debate is in fact not yielding the argument. Do note that this is different from demonstrating why the argument is wrong to a different audience. As an example, see how Tamino treats visitors from WTFUWT on his blog versus how he treats the rest of the questions. Look at how patient he is with sceptics until they drop a typical WTFUWT phrase.
Trust a denier to misunderstand actual science though.
they clone Mac paradigms, which is why they opted for a dock
Sigh. After the teenagers that think that Microsoft invented the Personal Computer, now we have to contend with Apple fanbois that think the dock is a Mac OSX invention.
Slashdot Mirror
If both they and the one making the call are in public, then yes, he is a good judge of who should be on the phone or not: the ones able to keep a conversation brief, or of sufficiently low volume that they don't bother anyone.
Heh. I'm not saying Sennheiser sells bad stuff; just that if it were worth it to you, you probably could have picked up the same quality headphones at 20-40% cheaper.
If you don't care about that, you are absolutely right. Me personally, I feel deceived somewhat by this practice of selling OEM components under a high-end brand name to extract more money from me, so I research the OEMs and buy white-brand models of the same equipment. But that's due to my hangups with certain marketing tactics
As Monty explains in TFA, 48Khz gives the low-pass filter more headroom to work with. Aside from that, I agree that it does not matter.
Well said. Let me pitch in: I have a background of 11 years of classical guitar, and I like to listen to classical music. I can spot a lossily encoded file at bitrates that create a significantly better than 50% compression over FLAC, which is why I carry my classical stuff as FLAC.
I cannot, however, hear a quality difference on the same equipment using better than 48/16 sampling.
Mart
No, better DACs will fix it. A typical consumer grade player may well have a lousy cheap DAC to eke out a few more microcents of profit for the manufacturer.
I've done comparison listening using FLAC on mobile media players, and the quality of the DACs used is the distinguishing characteristic, closely followed by the quality of the amplifier. The winner is still Cowon, whose iAudio range is well-known for high-quality DACs, and still my favourite to carry classical music on.
Mart
BS. If the overtones of a flute high C and a piccolo high C are both under 22Khz, then sampling at twice that will catch all the overtones, and replaying the sample at the same rate will perfectly reproduce them.
And if the overtones are over 22Khz, but their lower-order harmonics aren't, the sampling will pick up the harmonics and reproduce them perfectly, even without the existence of the original overtone.
There is no subjectivity in that. An oscilliscope will show you that the overtones and/or their harmonics are all there.
The only step that decides whether or not the overtones have any influence is the quality of the low-pass filter. At 44Khz that can be a bit iffy, so using 48Khz to get a little more headroom is nice, but in practice you won't be able to hear a difference with anything above that.
The Nyquist Theorem says that the waveform will be perfectly replicated at if it is at half or lower the sampling frequency. In other words, the shape of the waveform that can be perfectly replicated at 192Khz is a 96Khz waveform at its highest. No human being will be able to hear that.
Theoretically, lower harmonics could be present in the signal, but if the source waveform gets sampled at less than 192Khz, the harmonics, being below the Nyquist threshold, will get sampled perfectly and remain.
In other words, whoever taught you was talking nonsense.
You've fallen for the marketing scam. Sennheiser just uses OEM parts and stamps their own name on it. I've lost my faith in that brand finding out that Creative sold the same OEM part for half the price.
Mart
The distorted guitars, hi-hats and cymbals in heavy metal, and the high notes (and harmonics) of the first violin parts in a string orchestra contain a lot of information in the high end. These are the parts I listen to when judging a lossily compressed file.
With a bad ADC/filter/DAC combination (or a single bad part in that entire chain), you will hear ugly distortions. However, given most studio equipment, this is a theoretical problem, not the reality GP makes it out to be.
In most cases, for listening purposes 16/44 will do just fine; 16/48 is better, 24/96 is for all practical purposes perfect, and more is overkill.
Mart
Wikipedia gives the link to the actual text of the law; it sounds very reasonable in fact. According to my reading, and giving a simplified translation, the French do not forbid moving from government to the private sector, they forbid taking a job in an enterprise that you were previously overseeing.
Of course, the question is why would Wikipedia summarise the law that badly? Although perhaps that may not be so surprising, given the largely 'teenage libertarian' nature of the editors.
Passport has already been under investigation by the EU. Perhaps not coincidentially, none of Microsoft's grandiose plans of a complete identity solution for the entire web panned out.
Mart
Bugger, I thought I had posted a reply yesterday, but that was lost, it seems.
But you are right, I got the name wrong. It is still the prime body tasked with inquiring into matters damaging to the faith and or the church, so I will take the name change as just a marketing effort. Then again, I'm a heretic anyway.
And the defenses againist possible fraud from executives come free? The SME's under the heavy thumb of regulations like SoX beg to differ.
Mart
In the US with its many crazy denominations who insist on their, ahem, unique interpretations of the Bible your statement might hold. However, over here in Europe, the position of reverend in a Protestant congregation requires the minimum of a Masters in Theology from an accredited university.
Now, you may scoff at religion, and that's your right, but you don't get to own the facts: a Masters of Theology from a University of the calibre of, say, Tuebingen, requires a lot of non-religious studies. I know that at least in the Netherlands, Kampen, which serves many smaller denominations, a lot of fundamentalists among them, requires at least Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, plus some Archaeology 101. That's not a combination for feeble brains, I think you would agree?
Mart
Aka the Congegration for the Defence of the Faith. Just call it what it is: The Holy Inquisition.
No, it is not as scary as it sounds. The Inquisition is basically the Internal Affairs department of the church, and giving them jurisdiction over the pedo-priest scandals is logical. But still, call it by its name.
Mart
Both programs show what Eric means by Bazaar development: "I throw out my half-assed code, other people spend years fixing my bugs and design flaws, and I take the credit."
Mart
I was not surprised when I first heard this, and it still surprises me not at all.
One of Tolkien's avowed aims was to instill in his readers a sense of joy and wonder at meeting creatures other than ourselves.
Now take Asimov, who deliberately took our worst fear of technology, that it would turn on us, and then turning it around, telling us stories about how technology might give use strange creatures that we can convers with and that are friendly.
Now also take into account that Tolkien feared technology a lot. He'd seen industrial slaughter on the Somme, he'd seen industrialisation destroy his beloved Midlands countryside, and he was not shy in expressing his fear and disgust.
And now a kindred soul, a writer who wants to show joy in contact with the Other, shows up, and gives a bright side of Tolkien's greatest fear.
I don't think Asimov is as great as some people make him out to be, but that sense of joy in just simple contact, that is something he did well. Lijeh and Daneel are one of fiction's greatest friendships.
Actually, you are right. For such a fallacy to be there, you would have to be making an actual argument. But since the intelligence in your utterances doesn't raise any higher than Alex's, I'm going to ignore you from now on.
Goodbye Polly; here's a cracker.
You have a lot of gall to be accusing other people of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy (incorrectly, even!), while engaging in it yourself.
Mart
Addendum to my other post: of course, trust a denier to take a snarky expression of exasperation as an actual endorsement of scientific policy. You guys don't just misunderstand science, you can't handle language beyond primary school level either./p
Actually, yes they did. You don't see anyone actually debating the creationist arguments on its merits, now do you?
And saying, 'your arguments are unscientific' and refusing serious debate is in fact not yielding the argument. Do note that this is different from demonstrating why the argument is wrong to a different audience. As an example, see how Tamino treats visitors from WTFUWT on his blog versus how he treats the rest of the questions. Look at how patient he is with sceptics until they drop a typical WTFUWT phrase.
Trust a denier to misunderstand actual science though.
No, it's shorthand for "We've tried finding rational arguments in their spew for years and we have decided to give up".
Mart
Given that there is not much more than skin on a knee, I'd say it reacts exactly as GP says it does.
So how does it feel to be a toady to the authoritarians?
Which is exactly what I said, now isn't it?
How about taking a remedial reading class?
Mart
Sigh. After the teenagers that think that Microsoft invented the Personal Computer, now we have to contend with Apple fanbois that think the dock is a Mac OSX invention.
Mart