🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 18 May 2001 02:14:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com>
wrote:

>
>"Ulrich Grassberger" <grasso@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3b046d21.84012158@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> >http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm :
>> "These samples were made by applying CoolEdit Pro 'FFT'  low-pass
>> filtering  at the indicated frequency. The cutoff slope is in
>excess
>> of 100 dB/octave."
>>
>> So you use a linear-phase filter which leads to symmetrical
>ringing.
>
>OK.
>
>> Now, the pre-ringing can be detected by our ears.
>
>Please prove it with a DBT. All the pieces you need to "play" are at
>http://www.pcabx.com/technical/low_pass/index.htm including the DBT
>comparator. You do have to provide your own sound card and listening
>environment, but you must have that, right?
>
>> If you used a filter flatter than 100dB/oct but with a lower limit
>frequency and different coefficients you might be able to reduce
>pre-ringing.
>
>Mr. Grasso you are way ahead of yourself. You've presumed that the
>ringing is audible, but you've neither cited a relevant well-known
>psychoacoustic authority nor have you provided reliable evidence
>based on a listening test. Anybody can make unproven assertions and
>many people have.
>
>>That means that a lower limit frequency can sound better.
>
>In the absence of reliable evidence the claim "sounds better" is
>irrelevant.
>
>>I explain it at  grassomusic.de/english/digital.htm#96khz in full
>length.
>
>Until you've proven that it's audible Mr. Grasso, all you've done
>"proven"  your hypothesis by making yet another hypothesis.
>
>Mr. Grasso are you familiar with the concept of readily demonstrable
>facts? That's what any reasonable person is looking for. If the
>effect you claim is audible, is in fact audible then you should be
>able to demonstrate it in a DBT, no?
>
>That hardly seems like any kind of a notable accomplishment, no?

Do you even know this guy's name? Can you not read your own
newsreader? Some computer expert! LOL! LoT:s!