Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in news:dqag2l01na2@enews1.newsguy.com:> > > Gary Sokolich wrote: >> In fact, you are so technically >> inept that not too long ago you had to go begging in sci.physics for >> someone to lead you hand in solving a simple second-order partial >> differential equation that is discussed in virtually every >> introductory textbook on acoustics.> Moron.Sorry, but I'm really unimpressed. A pathological narcissist, sadistic sociopath, congential liar and hypocrite, and technically-inept jackass, such as yourself, can certainly do much better than that.> It was a *non-linear* differential equation and it derived > from _my_ analysis of the problem. (If you can show priority on that > analysis please do so.)As usual, you are full of crap (yourself). You didn't analyze squat. The first analysis of frequency-modulation distortion in a direct radiator loudspeaker (which you repeatedly claimed didn't exist) was done in 1943 by Beers and Belar (Proc.IRE, Vol.31,No.4,p132). Last year, Art Ludwig published an theoretical analysis on his website of the very phenomenon that you repeatedly denied. Your exchange with Art Ludwig at the time in alt.sci.physics.acoustics clearly demonstrated to everyone (including Art) that you were completely incapable of understanding his analysis. It was at that point, being unable to understand the analysis that Art Ludwig performed, that you went to sci.physics begging for help in analyzing the problem. Subsequently, you claimed to have analyzed the problem but you never presented your analysis. The reason is pretty obvious. You are a fraud and you never performed any analysis.> Where else do you think the distortion > components could have come from? If you didn't understand that when > you saw it you don't have any business talking about it. You never > did understand a thing about the problem.That assertion is not supported by the comments/posts of unbiased, educated professionals in alt.sci.acoustics. It is you, not I who doesn't understand the problem to this day.>> Worse yet, you were ultimately told by Zigoteau, >> your hand-holder in sci.physics, that you really had no idea what you >> were doing. > > You got that much right. I had no idea how to find a solution to that > equation and needed help. Zigoteau immediately saw the correct > formulation and the expansion required for an approximate solution and > couldn't understand why I didn't. Ah, well. > > It must be cool to be like Gary Sokolich and never, ever need help > with anything.Everyone needs help. In fact you are in serious need of both techncial and psychiactric help. It must not be cool, though, to have such a mortal> fear of being wrong that it prevents you from ever offering any help > or any technical substance to a discussion either.And it must have been hard for you when you stopped cheating on your wife. Give me a break and get a reality check. What you really mean is that I won't give you any technical help. In that regard, you are right. Given that you have been harassing and insulting me on the internet for the past five years, why the hell shoudl I?> BTW, Gary, have you seen this: > > "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to > originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are > transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without > disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or > harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined > under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." > > From H.R.3402 signed into federal law 1/5/2006 > BobYes I have. First of all, I have never sent you any annoying, abusive, threatening or harassing communciation. Secondly, I don't give up my rights to free speech when I log on and post to a public newsgroup on the internet, irrespective of whether or not I post anonymously or under my name. Thirdly, I consider my posts, which point out your lies, hypocricy and technical incompetence, to be a public service anouncement for those who are naive and unaware of the nonsensical bull crap that you dish out on a daily basis, and as entertainment to those who eat it and who mindlessly line up to kiss your ass. Lastly, the excerpt that you quote from H.R.3402 is so blatantly unconstitutional that the scumbags at the ACLU are already foaming at the mouth and mounting a challenge. In fact, I'd love to be the test case. So, if you haven't already done so, I encourage you to file a complaint aginst me with the authorities. When you do so, please tell them that they too can kiss my ass.
OT: Where did you get your start?
Started by ●January 13, 2006
Reply by ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Reply by ●January 17, 20062006-01-17
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in news:dqag2l01na2@enews1.newsguy.com:> > > Gary Sokolich wrote: >> In fact, you are so technically >> inept that not too long ago you had to go begging in sci.physics for >> someone to lead you hand in solving a simple second-order partial >> differential equation that is discussed in virtually every >> introductory textbook on acoustics.> Moron.Sorry, but I'm really unimpressed. A pathological narcissist, sadistic sociopath, congential liar and hypocrite, and technically-inept jackass, such as yourself, can certainly do much better than that.> It was a *non-linear* differential equation and it derived > from _my_ analysis of the problem. (If you can show priority on that > analysis please do so.)As usual, you are full of crap (yourself). You didn't analyze squat. The first analysis of frequency-modulation distortion in a direct radiator loudspeaker (which you repeatedly claimed didn't exist) was done in 1943 by Beers and Belar (Proc.IRE, Vol.31,No.4,p132). Last year, Art Ludwig published an theoretical analysis on his website of the very phenomenon that you repeatedly denied. Your exchange with Art Ludwig at the time in alt.sci.physics.acoustics clearly demonstrated to everyone (including Art) that you were completely incapable of understanding his analysis. It was at that point, being unable to understand the analysis that Art Ludwig performed, that you went to sci.physics begging for help in analyzing the problem. Subsequently, you claimed to have analyzed the problem but you never presented your analysis. The reason is pretty obvious. You are a fraud and you never performed any analysis.> Where else do you think the distortion > components could have come from? If you didn't understand that when > you saw it you don't have any business talking about it. You never > did understand a thing about the problem.That assertion is not supported by the comments/posts of unbiased, educated professionals in alt.sci.acoustics. It is you, not I who doesn't understand the problem to this day.>> Worse yet, you were ultimately told by Zigoteau, >> your hand-holder in sci.physics, that you really had no idea what you >> were doing. > > You got that much right. I had no idea how to find a solution to that > equation and needed help. Zigoteau immediately saw the correct > formulation and the expansion required for an approximate solution and > couldn't understand why I didn't. Ah, well. > > It must be cool to be like Gary Sokolich and never, ever need help > with anything.Everyone needs help. In fact you are in serious need of both techncial and psychiactric help. It must not be cool, though, to have such a mortal> fear of being wrong that it prevents you from ever offering any help > or any technical substance to a discussion either.And it must have been hard for you when you stopped cheating on your wife. Give me a break and get a reality check. What you really mean is that I won't give you any technical help. In that regard, you are right. Given that you have been harassing and insulting me on the internet for the past five years, why the hell shoudl I?> BTW, Gary, have you seen this: > > "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to > originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are > transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without > disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or > harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined > under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." > > From H.R.3402 signed into federal law 1/5/2006 > BobYes I have. First of all, I have never sent you any annoying, abusive, threatening or harassing communciation. Secondly, I don't give up my rights to free speech when I log on and post to a public newsgroup on the internet, irrespective of whether or not I post anonymously or under my name. Thirdly, I consider my posts, which point out your lies, hypocricy and technical incompetence, to be a public service anouncement for those who are naive and unaware of the nonsensical bull crap that you dish out on a daily basis, and as entertainment to those who eat it and who mindlessly line up to kiss your ass. Lastly, the excerpt that you quote from H.R.3402 is so blatantly unconstitutional that the scumbags at the ACLU are already foaming at the mouth and mounting a challenge. In fact, I'd love to be the test case. So, if you haven't already done so, I encourage you to file a complaint aginst me with the authorities. When you do so, please tell them that they too can kiss my ass.
Reply by ●January 18, 20062006-01-18
Start in DSP? For some reason, during my university days, I took a whole bunch of courses on complex analysis, numerical analysis, circuits, controls systems, etc., passed exams... and promptly Forgot Everything... for two or so decades of playing with digital systems architecture and such. Then, just a few years ago someone said "hey, you're a PalmPilot programmer and know something about electronics, can you can you code up an audio filter and maybe a guitar tuner for me?". So I Google'd for some random algorithms (found an FFT and RBJ's biquad recipe), blindly implemented them, and found my results horribly broken. I figured that in order to debug my implementations I'd have to go to the library and actually learn how this stuff is supposed to work. I found several good books there, including Hamming's, maybe an old copy of Lyon's, perused some incomprehensible equations, and a lightbulb went off. Hey this looks just like... all that "useless" stuff I supposedly learned in school. So I dusted off some old math and EE textbooks, reviewed, then reread the DSP books, experimented by making lots of new mistakes in my algorithms, replaced my weird broken DSP code with still weird but maybe less broken code which actually occasionally seems to do something useful (enough to convince a very major consumer electronic company to build some of it into their product), and now pretend on comp.dsp that I actually know something about the subject. And, of course: eventually to be continued, since I'm *still* just getting my start... IMHO. YMMV. -- Ron N. http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/home.html
Reply by ●January 18, 20062006-01-18
Al Clark wrote:> In the early 1990s, I designed a set of noise reduction products > primarily sold to ham radio. Perhaps, some of you know of these products > (Timewave DSP-599zx and others). This is when I started using ADI DSPs > (2105 & 218x).You created the Timewave? I have a feature request. While working 20 metres and having a conversation between my station and another in the northwest territories, some guy blasted over us with enough ERP to nearly pin the signal strength meter on the radio... "THIS IS DUBYA FOUR BLAH BLAH BLAH FROM FLORIDA". We carried on conversing, but 'dubya four from florida' kept on transmitting and started naming off our callsigns looking for a contact. Finally, I acknowledged him and indicated that we were having a conversation, and that he should find another frequency. In response, he indicated that he was from florida and asked what his signal strength was - again, I told him again to find another frequency. I guess he went elsewhere for a while. Then 5 minutes later, I'm still talking to the NYT station when suddenly "CQ CQ THIS IS DUBYA FOUR BLAH BLAH BLAH... FROM FLORIDA" The other guy at the station with me looked at the Timewave (which is a great piece of gear, I should add) and asked - "can't this thing filter out florida?"... Unfortunately, it couldn't. Now whenever anyone in our ham club gets a new radio or other piece of gear, the first question that gets asked is "but, can it filter out florida?"... So there you go. Get that florida filter coded and you'll have a bunch of new customers. :D GM
Reply by ●January 18, 20062006-01-18
Gary Marsh wrote: ..> Now whenever anyone in our ham club gets a new radio or other piece of > gear, the first question that gets asked is "but, can it filter out > florida?"... So there you go. Get that florida filter coded and you'll > have a bunch of new customers. :D > > GMThanks for a truly fab post, which has made a dull afternoon here in Blighty that much brighter. I have only one thought - that the filter should be called a "dubya filter". Apart from more accurately describing the problem, that seems more universally attractive, with a potentially world market. Richard Dobson
Reply by ●January 18, 20062006-01-18
Gary Marsh <dont@spam.me.plz> wrote in news:O8rzf.127582$OU5.105176@clgrps13:> Al Clark wrote: >> In the early 1990s, I designed a set of noise reduction products >> primarily sold to ham radio. Perhaps, some of you know of these >> products (Timewave DSP-599zx and others). This is when I started >> using ADI DSPs (2105 & 218x). > > You created the Timewave? I have a feature request. > > While working 20 metres and having a conversation between my station > and another in the northwest territories, some guy blasted over us > with enough ERP to nearly pin the signal strength meter on the > radio... "THIS IS DUBYA FOUR BLAH BLAH BLAH FROM FLORIDA". We carried > on conversing, but 'dubya four from florida' kept on transmitting and > started naming off our callsigns looking for a contact. Finally, I > acknowledged him and indicated that we were having a conversation, and > that he should find another frequency. > > In response, he indicated that he was from florida and asked what his > signal strength was - again, I told him again to find another > frequency. I guess he went elsewhere for a while. Then 5 minutes > later, I'm still talking to the NYT station when suddenly "CQ CQ THIS > IS DUBYA FOUR BLAH BLAH BLAH... FROM FLORIDA" > > The other guy at the station with me looked at the Timewave (which is > a great piece of gear, I should add) and asked - "can't this thing > filter out florida?"... Unfortunately, it couldn't. > > Now whenever anyone in our ham club gets a new radio or other piece of > gear, the first question that gets asked is "but, can it filter out > florida?"... So there you go. Get that florida filter coded and you'll > have a bunch of new customers. :D > > GM >Believe it or not, I have heard this question in various forms before. One of the big problems with noise reduction is that you are always trading off between quality (naturalness), listening fatique and intelligibility. I guess the algorithm still needs lots of work on the intelligibility parameter;-) -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●January 18, 20062006-01-18
Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:Eeszf.3367$wl.2881@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:> Gary Marsh wrote: > > .. >> Now whenever anyone in our ham club gets a new radio or other piece >> of gear, the first question that gets asked is "but, can it filter >> out florida?"... So there you go. Get that florida filter coded and >> you'll have a bunch of new customers. :D >> >> GM > > Thanks for a truly fab post, which has made a dull afternoon here in > Blighty that much brighter. I have only one thought - that the filter > should be called a "dubya filter". Apart from more accurately > describing the problem, that seems more universally attractive, with a > potentially world market. > > Richard Dobson >It seems to me that there was a Gore filter in Florida a few years ago. I believe it was called the Butterfly ballot. There was another filter called the Hanging Chad filter. Of course, the biggest filter of them all was a partisan Supreme Court who basically filtered out all the unknown Florida votes and said it would be unfair to actually try to count them to any standard whatsoever. It didn't seem to matter to them that it was the Florida Supreme Court's call as outlined in our Constitution. Why bother with Constitutional issues when you want a specific outcome? -- Al Clark Danville Signal Processing, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Purveyors of Fine DSP Hardware and other Cool Stuff Available at http://www.danvillesignal.com
Reply by ●January 20, 20062006-01-20
To all: Thanks for posting! I am relatively young in this field (and overall, as I'm only 22...) and I find it to be a big confidence booster when I hear that others have the same struggles I do. Hope Bob and Gary can work out their differences, as it seems like there's some serious stuff going on there, but alas, some peoples just don't like each other. I'm gonna keep on learning this stuff and who knows where it'll take me! To the moon! Chris
Reply by ●January 20, 20062006-01-20
On 18 Jan 2006 00:48:48 -0800, "Ron N." <rhnlogic@yahoo.com> wrote:>Start in DSP? > >For some reason, during my university days, I took a whole bunch >of courses on complex analysis, numerical analysis, circuits,(snipped) Hi, neat story Ron. I was tickled by your phrase: "... and a lightbulb went off. Hey this looks just like... all that "useless" stuff I supposedly learned in school." That describes my experiences *exactly*. I graduated from engineering school without to the slightest understanding of, or appreciation for, the "j" (complex math) operator. As for convolution, I thought convolution was created by university professors to make students' lives miserable. I now consider the convolution theorem to be the single most important concept for a "signal processing guy" to understand. See Ya', [-Rick-]
Reply by ●January 20, 20062006-01-20
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:31:39 -0600, "Chris.Gammell" <cjg11@case.edu> wrote:>Hey all, > >I was just wondering how everybody got their start in DSP. I am personally >geting mine by working with FPGAs and Simulink tools. Also, I am working my >way into hand coding DSP chips (hence the reason I'm here!). Anyway, just >wondering, as I think it's interesting to know where people came from and >such. I hope to especially hear from the *ahem* experienced (prominent, >older, whatever) members. Thanks! > >ChrisHi, intertesting question Chris. (I've enjoyed reading the follow-up posts so far.) My story is as follows: Years ago I was working for a startup company in California, and I was trying to understand this process called trans-multiplexing. Transmultiplexers use FFTs, which I assumed I would never be able to understand, and they also perform a simple process of multiplying a time sequence by alternating ones and zeros. I learned that multiplying a time sequence by alternating ones and zeros would frequency-translate the spectrum of the original sequence. To me, that frequency translation was pure "black magic". I was hooked, ... I just had to figure out what causes that frequency translation. This forced me to study the simple process of periodic sampling in great detail. I suppose it was the periodic spectral replication nature of periodic sampling that made me become fascinated with discrete samples and DSP. I took an evening course on DSP and the 2nd half of the class textbook was a series of applications notes from some hardware vendors. I happened to find a mistake in one of those notes with regard to periodic sampling. (As it turned out I had spent a fair amount of time studying periodic sampling. It was the only DSP topic that I had a handle on at the time. In the late 1980s I wrote a short, and simple, article for a hardware testing magazine on lowpass and bandpass sampling.) Well in mid 1990 I had a this wild idea and wrote the primary author, (he had two co-authors) of my DSP class textbook and volunteered to write a chapter on periodic sampling for the next edition of his book. The book's primary author was, at that time, teaching at a university on the East Coast of the U.S. I called him on the phone and explained my idea. He requested my material and assured me that he'd review it, and not plagiarize any of it. I thought, "Hey Rick, if you work hard enough you might actually get your name listed as a contributor to a book!" I was pretty excited. After refining, and expanding, my periodic sampling material I mailed it to the book's primary author. I *never* heard from him again!! He returned none of my phone calls nor answered any of my subsequent letters. (There was no E-mail at that time.) So, ... in the early 1990s I decided, heck with him I'll write my own book. Of course I had to learn something about DSP before I could write about it. And that's what started my journey through the beautiful and treacherous land of DSP. Ah, ... how little I knew about DSP back then. The troubling thing is realizing how little I know about DSP now. See Ya', [-Rick-]
