29 Sep
2004
29 Sep
'04
11:17 a.m.
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(a)earthlink.net wrote:
Was: Converting sample rate: failed...
Erik,
Regarding your recent post on this subject:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
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.