On 22/08/2015, Ethan Duni <ethan.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
And you're wrong - all those 88 alias images are "effects of resampling"... > That has nothing to do with exactly how the graphs > were generated, nor does insisting that the graphs are slightly noisy > address the point. Well, it was *you* who insisted that it displays a graphed sinc^2 curve, and not a resampled signal... And you were wrong. > Indeed, you've already conceded that the resampling effects are not visible > in the graphs several posts back. Aren't all those 88 alias images "effects of resampling"? What are those, if not "effects of resampling"? You claimed "no upsampling is involved", yet when I upsample noise, I get exactly that graph. So it seems you were wrong. > 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. Well, if you do not see that the curve is NOT a graphed sinc^2, but rather, a noisy curve seemingly from resampled noise, then you have some underlying problem. > Honestly, it's a pretty sad spectacle and I'm embarrassed for you. 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. Yet - for some reason - you keep interacting with me for the past 22 mails you wrote. Maybe to "feed your fragile ego" and prove that you "won"... (?) > By the way, there's no reason for any jaggedness to appear in the plots, > given the lengths of data you were talking about. There *is* reason for jaggedness to appear in the plots. If you don't believe, try it yourself - take some white noise sampled at 500 Hz, and resample it to 44.1 kHz. The shorter the length, the more jagged the spectrum will look. Besides, we do not know how much data Olli processed, so you cannot say "there's no reason for jaggedness in his graph" - as you do not know how he derived his graph. So your argument is invalid again. > 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). Exactly. And that's what I used (spectral averaging over a long segment), yet it is STILL noisy, if the white noise segment is not very long. So your argument is wrong again... -P _______________________________________________ music-dsp mailing list music-dsp@music.columbia.edu https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
