Hey, David, I support the right to share knowledge and express opinion but I think you need to do a better job of it. Claiming that Erik is wrong, puts the impetus of proof on you. It's your responsibility to provide direct qoutes with publication titles and page numbers. A failure to demonstrate your arguments and show test results becomes a knock against your credibility. Erik has made a siginificant contribution that many of us need. I imagine alot of people have followed this thread and would like it to either end, or resolve with a positive and intellectually compelling tact. David, I'm a satisfied user of Erik's code and will continue happily using it. I imagine that statement in your opinion is an admission of ignorance but I'll happily live with that. If Erik improves his code with or without your help all the better. David, I read your posts knowing I'll learn something and it seems obvious that both you and him are talented. I think we're all better off for having both of you participating and hope it stays that way. Coffee Time. ron --- davidrclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Was: Converting sample rate: failed... > > Erik, > > Regarding your recent post on this subject: > > > Funnily enough the issue you see as a "serious > misconception" I see > > as a "significant advantage of libsamplerate over > your converter". [0] > > > [0] You claim that the highly localized behavior > of the truncated > > windowed sinc is a bad thing. I claim that > this localization is > > a good thing for converting a general digital > audio signal because > > these signals are already highly localized (ie > snare drum hit at > > 10.03 seconds from the start). From your > description, your > > converter spreads these highly localized > events over the whole > > of the output signal which I think is a bad > thing. > > ----------------------------------------- > > This is absolute nonsense. Your misconception is > even more deeply > rooted than I had thought. You are obviously > missing some theoretical > background I had assumed you had. If you had had > this background, you > probably wouldn't have written the rest of your > post, in addition to > not having posted this nonsense. > > You mentioned an interest in certain characteristics > of the resampling > method I'm using. Either do the analysis or do the > literature research. > I've already told you everything you need to know: > FFT with and without > overlap; overlap accomplished with raised cosine > windows. Only someone > who is utterly clueless would insist on obtaining my > code for measurements. > (And only someone who is very immature would > characterize this standard > advice as "hot air" before they even saw it.) > > Good luck, > Dave. > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
