21 Apr
2010
21 Apr
'10
7:43 p.m.
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.