The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (Gibbo)
Date: 04 Nov 2002 20:56:17 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Bullshit wins v. science
"Kevin Aylward" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>"John Woodgate" wrote in message
>> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
>> wrote (in
>> .ntli.net>) about 'Bullshit wins v. science', on Mon, 4 Nov 2002:
>> >This is a misconception. The ear is *absolutly* *insensitive* to
>> >A static phase shift is quite undetectable. It is a Fourier analyser.
>> It is essential in such a case to distinguish 'polarity' from 'phase'.
>> polarity inversion of a complex signals cannot be described as a
>> valued 'phase shift'.
>I agree that this is a classic subtlety. A waveform with a positive
>triangle shape and a square negative illustrates the difference between
>phase and inversion.
>I note your comment in the other post that there are claims on detection
>of polarity. I'm very sceptical on this. There may be a possible
>mechanism for this if the sound was *very* loud, since you can increase
>pressure to whatever you want, but only reduce pressure to zero. This
>means distortion would be different............
Interesting you should say this. In another post I said I (and many others)
*could* detect polarity inversion but only on the attack. As I'm a guitarist
"attack" usually goes hand in hand with a les paul and and large valve amp
turned up too loud.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup