User talk:DroneB: Difference between revisions
→User accounts: Duly noted |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::Thanks for the reply. Please note the provisions of [[WP:SOCK]]: "A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the <nowiki>{{retired}}</nowiki> tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet." --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the reply. Please note the provisions of [[WP:SOCK]]: "A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the <nowiki>{{retired}}</nowiki> tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet." --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::YW and info is duly noted. [[User:DroneB|DroneB]] ([[User talk:DroneB#top|talk]]) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::YW and info is duly noted. [[User:DroneB|DroneB]] ([[User talk:DroneB#top|talk]]) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Hearing: difference in sensitivity to harmonics and intermodulation. == |
|||
Hi DroneB, |
|||
I am the person who posted a question about intermodulation and human hearing on Science Desk. You responded to a squawk on a talk page created for me, which I assume is about to disappear from the Wikipedia system, as my question is about to roll off into oblivion as new questions are added. To make this easy, I have copied your response here. I hope that is ok to do. Regards. |
|||
''Hi. You may remember that I responded to your question about Hearing at WP:RD/S. |
|||
1. I hope that you and Nil Einne patch up present disagreements. Nil Einne's concern about correct understanding of whether human evolution continues is undoubtedly genuine and supported by references that he provided [1]. I shall say that neither of you two look well in the unfriendly, unreferenced dispute [2], [3] that followed. Nil Einne was also unhappy [4] with Nimur's response that argued from music history that preference for harmonic sounds is an aesthetic, not an evolutionary, effect. Your singling Nil Einne out for abuse by name, IP user 121.44.191.221 was undoubtedly hurtful and seems poorly considered. |
|||
The outcome of the performance at the Ref. Desk is that Nil Einne considers himself still in dispute with you, and further suspects that you are a ban evader. From his hedged hints above, he may be insinuating that you are or have been Wickwack, who is found here. You have a right to hear whether that is his belief, and if so whether he claims it to be more than coincidence that the banned Wickwack addressed the subject of audio distortion in posts some 5 years ago. Incidentally, it's a respectable subject in Wikipedia. |
|||
2. I accept your point [5] that levels of IM that seem too low to affect perception of sound direction can still make reproduced sound unpleasant. Looie496 mentions the function of harmonics in perception of single contra multiple sound sources. Certainly our hominid ancestors who depended on sound localization for survival did not enjoy the luxury of relaxed listening to an orchestra on a stereo sound stage, where an audiophile may demand 0.1% IM. |
|||
3. Thank you for considering my off-topic [6] idea of cancelling IM in old recordings. This idea is based on success that I have seen in cancelling distortion of video in non-linear amplifiers by applying an opposite pre-distortion. You mentioned the complex harmonics of sound, but video is more complex and the method does not involve a harmonic analysis (not that a "warehouse full of supercomputers" could not be assembled if needed). My thinking is that IM-producing non-linearity can be corrected provided that it arises at a single point in the signal chain, and that there are no prolonged resonance frequencies (implying energy storage) or amplitude limiting e.g. fuzz guitar. |
|||
4. It's relevant to your question that human senses are all functionally non-linear, not least the Auditory system whose frequency and amplitude ranges are better quantified on logarithmic than linear scales. Thus at cellular level harmonic distortion is always present, and always has been in nature! It is a product of evolution that we have perceptual compensations for our own-generated harmonic distortions. This viewpoint, if true, turns your question around. Pure harmonic distortion may be dealt with by a kind of subjective volume control, comparable to the function of the iris in sight that serves to keep the stimulus strength within a small range that can be perceived linearly (comfortably). However we haven't been able to evolve a way to unperceive IM products, hence their special unpleasantness. DroneB (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
RDL is short for Language Reference Desk. DroneB (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
''Phone calls!!! Gotta go. Back later. Regards, OP. [[Special:Contributions/121.44.39.59|121.44.39.59]] ([[User talk:121.44.39.59|talk]]) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:57, 4 August 2018
Welcome!
Hello, DroneB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 14:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi DroneB! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 16:41, Wednesday, July 18, 2018 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Pipes
How do those two editors qualify as "knowledge Nazis", determining who has a "need" to know something? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
- You use my page to insult editors User:Shantavira and User:Sir Joseph. Your pretext is their use of the phrase "need to know" [1] [2] in responses at WP/M.
- It is an inescapable fact that one cannot answer questions on subjects of study without a knowledge of the subject, which is well covered by the essay WP:CIR. Thus anyone who has studied something is qualified to say what one needs to know to converse about it. As you seem oblivious to this patient explanation given to you, and because descending to mud-slinging about Nazis is crass, disruptive and offensive to two editors in good standing, I add nothing to my request in edit summary: "Please take any challenge to Shantavira's post to Talk or ANI". DroneB (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
User accounts
Is this the first time you have had a WP user account, or have you previously edited under another username? --Viennese Waltz 07:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I have edited Wikipedia earlier and now do so only as DroneB. DroneB (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Please note the provisions of WP:SOCK: "A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet." --Viennese Waltz 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- YW and info is duly noted. DroneB (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Please note the provisions of WP:SOCK: "A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet." --Viennese Waltz 18:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hearing: difference in sensitivity to harmonics and intermodulation.
Hi DroneB,
I am the person who posted a question about intermodulation and human hearing on Science Desk. You responded to a squawk on a talk page created for me, which I assume is about to disappear from the Wikipedia system, as my question is about to roll off into oblivion as new questions are added. To make this easy, I have copied your response here. I hope that is ok to do. Regards.
Hi. You may remember that I responded to your question about Hearing at WP:RD/S. 1. I hope that you and Nil Einne patch up present disagreements. Nil Einne's concern about correct understanding of whether human evolution continues is undoubtedly genuine and supported by references that he provided [1]. I shall say that neither of you two look well in the unfriendly, unreferenced dispute [2], [3] that followed. Nil Einne was also unhappy [4] with Nimur's response that argued from music history that preference for harmonic sounds is an aesthetic, not an evolutionary, effect. Your singling Nil Einne out for abuse by name, IP user 121.44.191.221 was undoubtedly hurtful and seems poorly considered. The outcome of the performance at the Ref. Desk is that Nil Einne considers himself still in dispute with you, and further suspects that you are a ban evader. From his hedged hints above, he may be insinuating that you are or have been Wickwack, who is found here. You have a right to hear whether that is his belief, and if so whether he claims it to be more than coincidence that the banned Wickwack addressed the subject of audio distortion in posts some 5 years ago. Incidentally, it's a respectable subject in Wikipedia. 2. I accept your point [5] that levels of IM that seem too low to affect perception of sound direction can still make reproduced sound unpleasant. Looie496 mentions the function of harmonics in perception of single contra multiple sound sources. Certainly our hominid ancestors who depended on sound localization for survival did not enjoy the luxury of relaxed listening to an orchestra on a stereo sound stage, where an audiophile may demand 0.1% IM. 3. Thank you for considering my off-topic [6] idea of cancelling IM in old recordings. This idea is based on success that I have seen in cancelling distortion of video in non-linear amplifiers by applying an opposite pre-distortion. You mentioned the complex harmonics of sound, but video is more complex and the method does not involve a harmonic analysis (not that a "warehouse full of supercomputers" could not be assembled if needed). My thinking is that IM-producing non-linearity can be corrected provided that it arises at a single point in the signal chain, and that there are no prolonged resonance frequencies (implying energy storage) or amplitude limiting e.g. fuzz guitar. 4. It's relevant to your question that human senses are all functionally non-linear, not least the Auditory system whose frequency and amplitude ranges are better quantified on logarithmic than linear scales. Thus at cellular level harmonic distortion is always present, and always has been in nature! It is a product of evolution that we have perceptual compensations for our own-generated harmonic distortions. This viewpoint, if true, turns your question around. Pure harmonic distortion may be dealt with by a kind of subjective volume control, comparable to the function of the iris in sight that serves to keep the stimulus strength within a small range that can be perceived linearly (comfortably). However we haven't been able to evolve a way to unperceive IM products, hence their special unpleasantness. DroneB (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC) RDL is short for Language Reference Desk. DroneB (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Phone calls!!! Gotta go. Back later. Regards, OP. 121.44.39.59 (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)