mmmmmm, I find that quite sad. But unsurprising. Alright guys, I'm gonna finally leave this one. It's become largely pointless seeing as you don't want a discussion. Take it easy.....

narcodude asked

Do you even know what the term means?

I know to a john mclaughlin metaphysical certitude
that the bogus term "intersample peak" has no logical rational meaning, as well as being counter intuitive.

you can say it means anything because it means nothing, just like every attribute of the empty set is true. as such it is totally useless for technical communications to facilitate interchange of ideas.

Care to repost in English, oldunintelligibleguy?!

See ya, narcoman. You were a brave soldier.

I'll give this one last shot on my way out...


We know that corresponding peaks existed in the analog source signal that was fed into AD and will be faithfully reconstructed as virtually identical peaks in the analog signal at DA, within the performance parameters implicit in the chosen digital format.

These peaks are part of the audio signal.

A few of them may be coincident with sampled values. Most will not be. But the Shannon-Nyquist Theorem shows that, within those performance parameters, those peaks -- and the rest of the signal -- can be faithfully captured, optionally stored, and faithfully reproduced as an analog signal at our pleasure.

Does this audio signal disappear at AD and magically reappear at DA?

Of course not.

We're able to store, copy, and finally reproduce a faithful copy of the electrical analog signal as we wish, even though we're only storing a fixed number of data points and the digital data format information.

But are the data points themselves the signal?

No.

It is the application of the interpretation rules implicit in the particular properties of our chosen digitization process to those data points which allows us to extract a faithful copy of the original analog signal.

So, to be certain, for the peaks which fall between data points, there are no values explicitly stored as sample values -- but those values are implicit in the synergistic whole of the data set and the rules with which we created that data set and which we will use to return the audio signal from the digital domain to the analog electrical domain.


The audio signal does not magically disappear at AD and then magically reappear out of nothing at DA.

The audio signal, of course, always exists, but in the digital realm it is expressed as the sampe data in combination with the interpretive rules -- in this fashion, it is parallel to virtually all other signalling systems.

And that audio signal does, indeed, contain both peaks that happen to have been sampled directly as well as the peaks which 'lie between' the sample values and which we can observe in both the audio signal being fed into the AD as well as the audio signal coming out the DA.

Those peaks which fall between samples never stop existing in the signal.


Ok. I'm out, too.

My unsolicited advice to OAG: figure out why you are compelled to troll for contentious disagreement -- and do a better job of thinking through any positions you're going to stake your 'reputation' on... since your primary assertion about intersample peaks not existing is deeply flawed and reveals a seriously compromised logcial process.

sorry

i am 100% correct about there being no intersample peaks
and have logically proved it

you can parrot internet whizdumb but that doesnt make it correct.

that was proper english.
would you care to learn english ?
sesame street could help you a lot.

Can I tag along blue 1 ? Where we off to?

And you can swim against convention, doesn't make it right either!

You is 100% pedantic, thats for sure - whizdumb or not.

You must be a hoot at dinner parties!

No it wasn't! It contained English words, but no punctuation, and made no sense.

Therefore, not English. I don't need sesame street (which btw teaches American, not English) thanks!

I can not Believe you are still not Banned from this site.Yoo are such a Huge Timewaster.UnFrikkinBelieveable.
Ah well.....

What makes this so entertaining, is that we show that the theory supports the idea, then post actual oscilloscope photos of it happening along with peer-reviewed papers describing the effect.

But still it's just an illusion............

Keeps me coming back for more whizdumb, that's for sure.


DC

ffs everyone ... we have been through this ... we are all aware of what happens at the output of a D/A - there's actually no disagreement about that!

this is pointless semantic pouting and there's no need to carry on

Actually, I've been more than a bit charmed by Geordie culture lately, myself. Busman's holiday for you, of course.

What?!?

You're passing up a chance to learn proper English at the feet of a living master of the language like OAG?

Pearls before... you know.


heh heh

I'm sorry, did you not earlier agree that audio signal doesn't stop at AD and magically reappear at DA?

Those signal peaks that come between samples -- as well as the handful of signal peaks that will actually be coincident with samples -- still exist as part of the audio signal, even in the digital realm. That audio signal is clearly not comprised only of the sample values but also the format 'rules' under which that digital signal is encoded and then decoded.

You're plain, flat-out wrong, not just by convention, but by simple logical analysis.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Indeed! I myself feel I little bit more stupid for reading all this shit! Even though there are actual facts and accepted "wizdumb" SICk.contained somewhere .you need a f'n treasure map and telescope to find the relevant information !

Good luck swim ... I mentioned the peak definition thing on page 1 ...

consensus does not make anything correct

i have logically shown how intersample peaks are impossible

you can use any bullbleep term to mean any nonsensical thing you want, but i will not jump off a cliff cause you and your friends are doing it either

i am a hoot everywhere just not dinner parties

you should get me started on the so called global warming scam the loonies are pushign to destroy the country with

i am right because what i say is right
not cause i can point to a million idiots that say it is so

i did not agree to that

i said the *information* was there
the signal itself was not

you never have any actual oscilloscope images

all the images were drawn by hand by combining
illogically and incorrectly some digital domain signal
on top of an analog domain signal

they are not comparable

hi swim, don´t even take the time to explain any more. This stopped being funny many pages back... nonsense... I almost read all the posts but stopped some pages back... and it could go on, and on.. hard to believe...

That's digital on the left, post-conversion on the right.

Not that it will help any.


DC

totally meaningless and misleading

you canNOT compare digital and analog domains meaningfully

Some people can. Notice how Mr. Waveform gets bigger after conversion?

What do you think we should call this phenomenon?

I propose we call it: "The OAG Effect."

Who's with me?


DC

Magis... Is that a real word?

I think oldanalogguy should be given a GS award for having defended his point of view so ardently, scientifically, relentlessly and other words ending in "-lly"!
heh

Hmm. OK. I was thinking you had. Apologies on that.

So, then, you maintain that even though information exists in the digital domain, signal does not, right?

So, by implication, there is no such thing as a digital signal then, right?

You have suggested that technical people should eschew jargon and use dictionary definitions. Here's one from dictionary.com:And here's a pertinent definition of signal, itself, from Merriam-Webster:So, now you're on record as denying the terms agreed up by the very scientists who developed digital sampling theory and its technological implementation, the industry which designs and builds the gear, and the definitions of mainstream dictionaries.



___________________________


If it's locked down, I would respectfully request that it is also placed in some sort of special archive where it can always be found -- because it illustrates -- not concisely heh -- the social and other problems introduced by the personal, uh, idiosyncrasies (pathologies is such a cold, unforgiving word) of those who claim to have a unique grasp of the truth, as it has been revealed to them, and who demand the attention of all in their often seemingly unending efforts to get folks to agree that they are sane and the world is crazy...

"Pedant", "bore" certainly...hoot? I'm not so certain.

you should get me started on the so called global warming scam the loonies are pushing to destroy the country with

Just about everything you say is subjective opinion (I'm referring here to your condescending, overwhelmingly negative posts in other threads - even in the GOOD NEWS forum where you delight in pouring scorn on the positive news of others), trollish pedantry or impenetrable pseudo-prose that makes no sense to man or beast, despite what you think you're saying.

You do realise that by referring to those who find the term "intersample peaks" a practical way of describing the phenomenon we ALL agree exists "idiots", you are insulting just about everyone who's ever worked in digital audio? IE people much cleverer than you, me and probably most here?

Somewhere there's a village missing its idiot, who is alive and well and posting on GS..

you are confusing the analog and digital domains again

hahaHAAAAha

cheers OAG, you're a catalyst to bemused amusement

Hardly.

I'm merely laying out what you have said and contrasting it to dictionary definitions of signal.

You suggest that signal disappears at AD and then reappears at DA -- that, within the digital domain, there is information, in the form of the explicit sample values -- but no signal.

I say that that flies in the face of both technical and common language definitions of signal.

I maintain that signal is represented from the mic to the AD and from DA to speaker by analog electrical current and the interpretive framework by which we transduce that back into real world sound, compression waves in air.

I further maintain that signal is represented from AD to DA by those explicit sample values and by the interpretive framework which we use to encode and decode the signal into and out of the digital domain.

In fact, I find further fault with your reasoning and/or language, because by common definition, information is not equivalent to raw data -- so those discrete values sampled during AD are not, themselves, information, but simply data points which must then be interpreted within the context of the signaling framework.

In a sense, you have effectively put the information 'cart' in front of the signal 'horse'...

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/data.html


More axiom than definition but I think this quotation from Clifford Stoll nicely illuminates that usage...
Clifford Stoll