>Naturally, there's going to be some jaggedness in the spectrum because >of the noise. So, obviously, that is not sinc^2 then.
So your whole point is that it's not *exactly* sinc^2, but a slightly noisy version thereof? My point was that there are no effects of resampling visible in the graphs. That has nothing to do with exactly how the graphs were generated, nor does insisting that the graphs are slightly noisy address the point. Indeed, you've already conceded that the resampling effects are not visible in the graphs several posts back. It seems like you're just casting about for some other issue that you can tell yourself you "won," and then call me names, to feed your fragile ego. Honestly, it's a pretty sad spectacle and I'm embarrassed for you. It really would be better for everyone - including you - if you could interact in a good-faith, mature manner. Please make an effort to start doing so, or you're pretty soon going to find that nobody here will interact with you any more. By the way, there's no reason for any jaggedness to appear in the plots, given the lengths of data you were talking about. You might want to look into spectral density estimation methods to trade off frequency resolution and bin accuracy. It's pretty standard statistical signal processing 101 stuff. Producing a very smooth graph from a long enough segment of data is straightforward, if you use appropriate techniques (not just one big FFT of the whole thing, that won't ever get rid of the noisiness no matter how much data you throw at it). E On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Peter S <peter.schoffhau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/08/2015, Ethan Duni <ethan.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We've been over this repeatedly, including in the very post you are > > responding to. The fact that there are many ways to produce a graph of > the > > interpolation spectrum is not in dispute, nor is it germaine to my point. > > Earlier you disputed that there's no upsampling involved. > Apparently you change your mind quite often... > > > It's seems like you are trying to > > avoid my point entirely, in favor of some imaginary dispute of your own > > invention, which you think you can "win." > > I claimed something, and you disputed it. I proved that what I > claimed, is true. Therefore, all your further arguments are invalid... > (and are boring) > > > I have no idea what you think you are proving by scrutinizing graph > > artifacts like that > > I am proving that what you see on the graph is not sinc(x) / > sinc^2(x), but rather some noisy curve, like the spectrum of upsampled > noise. Therefore, my original argument is correct. > > > It's also in extremely poor taste to use "retard" as a term of abuse. > > Well, if you do not see that the graph pictured on Olli's figure is > not sinc(x), then you're retarded. > > > Meanwhile, it seems that you are suggesting that the spectrum of white > > noise linearly interpolated up to a high oversampling rate is not sinc^2. > > Naturally, there's going to be some jaggedness in the spectrum because > of the noise. So, obviously, that is not sinc^2 then. > > > Are you claiming that those wiggles in the graph represent > > aliasing of the spectrum from resampling at 44.1kHz? If so, that is > > unlikely. > > Nope, the "wiggles" in the graph are from the noise. > > -P > _______________________________________________ > music-dsp mailing list > music-dsp@music.columbia.edu > https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp >
_______________________________________________ music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
