On 04/21/2010 10:58 PM, Niels Mayer wrote: > Prove it! I don't need another paper telling me about nyquist or how > compression works. Until you have a proper model of human perception, this > kind of cocky blinded-pseudo-rationalism, or repeating the same old tired > truisms -- is just a waste of everybody's time. Nyquist is at best a > sophomoric model of the *human* perception of sound, the biological > perception, of the "energies" you're talking about. It's like Marie Curie > saying "well it only fogs the film"... yeah, and in biological organisms it > causes cancer -- because it's not just the energy, it's also the frequency > (and in this argument, phase). niels, the sampling theorem has nothing whatsoever to do with human hearing. it is pure information theory, and demonstrably correct. asking somebody to prove it all over again is a really stupid thing to do. the intelligent way to get rid of the sampling theorem is to provide a (mathematically rigorous) counter example. don't waste your time searching. if you want to explore new ways of understanding human hearing, then by all means do so. but don't jump to false conclusions about fundamental mathematical truths. you will find that reading (and actually trying to understand) a paper or two might indeed help. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
