OK this part I believe! As I recall the original
statement was that in a small area it was correct,
and then it was not. That I found incomprehensible.
But this makes perfect sense of course.
Thanks for the clarification
Robert
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 06:33:47PM -0700, Robert Greene wrote:
To my mind it makes not much sense to suppose that the first order
reconstruction is correct in a neighborhood of the listener
but higher order is correct in a larger neighborhood--not literally
correct. This seems "metaphysically" impossible. Where in the
set up is there any length scale? What would determine the
size of the neighborhood? Within a given error, I can see it.
Nobody claims there's a hard border between the 'correctly
reconstructed' area and the rest. If you're close enough the
error will be small, just as x is a reasonable approximation
to sin(x) for small x, adding an x^3 term will give a better
one, etc. The length scale is wavelenght.
Ciao,
--
FA
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
