Human hearing instataneous dynamic rage?

Richard Owlett wrote:

> 
> So I was then hit with methods of possibly improving 2D methods in which
> I have no reason to be interested. Down hill from there.

Ha Ha Ha you are a hoot. I was making a statement about the reasons why 2d
representations are limited. You incorrectly interpret my statement as
suggesting "methods of possibly improving 2D methods" and then wonder why the
discussion falls apart. 


> 

> >
> >    You're looking at frequency vs. amplitude vs. time. I suspect one
> > reason you're not seeing what you want is the length of the FFT. If
> > it's long then it will smear higher frequency transients. Now that I
> > think about it, it will smear all transients. The FFT displays things
> > as if they were steady-state signals present for the whole duration of
> > the window.
> 
> NO
> 
> My FFT's (NOTE BENE the plural) cover up to tens of seconds.
> Currently I'm using 10 mSec windows.
> 
> Why I don't see features is *STRICTLY* _AND_ *EXPLICITLY* a
> representation issue.

So who appointed you to be GOD. There is absolutely no possibility that he is
right and you are wrong.


> 
> There a large items.
> There are small items.
> I want to see details of each.


> 
> Now a foot high object on a mountain may not be significant.
> But a foot deep hole in your front walk may be.
> I want to see both in a single display.
> 
> The typical approach is a log plot.
> Not too bad for large features.
> Small features can be seen.
> *BUT* irrelevantly small features also become *CLUTTER*
> 
> My input data may be 16 bit PCM, but my calculations are done in
> floating point with at least a 10^16 dynamic range. Obviously I can
> discard any points that are 2^16 smaller than my largest.
> 
> The question then becomes "does the system being investigated raise the
> smallest significant value more?"

Maybe. But the question is abstract to the point of being essentially worthless.
Is the question you are trying to ask -> Can the speech signal be quantized down
to some number of bits and still be clear and understandable? Or are you asking
something else?

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jerry Avins wrote:

> Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
>   ...
> 
>> The fourth is "dynamic". That is an adjective.
> 
> 
> Parse "There was a favorable group dynamic."
> 
>   ...
> 
> Jerry


OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ
Oy vey
Hoist by own petard.
'Vat can I say ;/

But I'll ask anyway,
"Do you disagree with the gist of my post?"

Then again, will butt of multi-lingual pun realize same?

I don't know what problem you are trying to solve so I will
suggest on how to perfect your solution.


jim wrote:

> 
> Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
> 
>>So I was then hit with methods of possibly improving 2D methods in which
>>I have no reason to be interested. Down hill from there.
> 
> 
> Ha Ha Ha you are a hoot.

Careful twerp.
I'll be one to pun on my name.

> I was making a statement about the reasons why 2d
> representations are limited. You incorrectly interpret my statement as
> suggesting "methods of possibly improving 2D methods" and then wonder why the
> discussion falls apart. 

Nae, I had already stated that 2D was unsuitable,
I, *ERRONEOUSLY*, assumed [parseable in interesting ways;] that you were 
trying to be useful.

You repeatedly said that "I should ..."
LOL ROFL


> 
>>>   You're looking at frequency vs. amplitude vs. time. I suspect one
>>>reason you're not seeing what you want is the length of the FFT. If
>>>it's long then it will smear higher frequency transients. Now that I
>>>think about it, it will smear all transients. The FFT displays things
>>>as if they were steady-state signals present for the whole duration of
>>>the window.
>>
>>NO
>>
>>My FFT's (NOTE BENE the plural) cover up to tens of seconds.
>>Currently I'm using 10 mSec windows.
>>
>>Why I don't see features is *STRICTLY* _AND_ *EXPLICITLY* a
>>representation issue.
> 
> 
> So who appointed you to be GOD. 

Your reading failure.
The data was there. I reported problems *observing* it.

Re-read rest of your own post.
THEN
      engage *BRAIN* before posting

Richard Owlett wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>   ...
>>
>>> The fourth is "dynamic". That is an adjective.
>>
>>
>> Parse "There was a favorable group dynamic."
>>
>>   ...
>>
>> Jerry
> 
> 
> OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ
> Oy vey
> Hoist by own petard.
> 'Vat can I say ;/
> 
> But I'll ask anyway,
> "Do you disagree with the gist of my post?"
> 
> Then again, will butt of multi-lingual pun realize same?

What was its aim?

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Richard Owlett wrote:

> 
> You repeatedly said that "I should ..."

No, you repeatedly misrepresent what others have written. 

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---