|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
203.58.188.211
In Reply to: Hmmm... posted by Charles Hansen on December 21, 2005 at 09:34:25:
Are you not man enough?I've quoted you the HDCD patent number. Based on this, you can download the patent yourself from the US Patents Office, which clearly describes the mechanism for dynamic filter selection that you don't believe exists.
In addition, it describes other mechanisms (such as low level gain manipulation, and waveform synthesis) which absolutely do show that an HDCD decoder is required for optimal HDCD playback, regardless of whether Peak Extend is present or not.
Really Charles, how arrogant or obtuse can you get? Calling out someone as being wrong when it is clear you do not know what you are talking about, and accusing myself and Teresa of having "reading comprehension issues" when it is clear you are the pot calling the kettle black ...
Charles, do yourself a favour and if you do not want to apologise, stop responding because your reputation on this forum is rapidly declining. You even have one of your customers (racerguy) basically telling you much of what you said is wrong. Are you willing to risk alienating your customers further?
Follow Ups:
Just because they patented a feature does not mean that it was implemented in the production version of the product. Please provide one written example where it is clearly stated that production HDCD decoders provide dynamic filter selection during *playback*.I don't think you can because I don't think such a document exists. I can hardly blame you for your perceptions, as much of the HDCD literature was written to be deliberately misleading. It's not surprising that you (and many others) have gained the wrong impression from their misleading claims.
But the thing that is puzzling to me is that when I point out the true facts, for some reason you take this personally and stoop to personal insults. You question my manliness and call me shameful, pathetic, and self-serving. I would instead suggest trying to find some factual evidence that supports your claims.
Charles, so far you've accused me of somehow "missing a point", being wrong, have reading comprehension issues, "confused" and who knows what else. So who's stooping to insults?Your suggestion that what's documented in a patent has not implemented is rather fanciful and contrived. Perhaps it is you who need to prove this assertion? Or is it simply because you can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong?
*** I would instead suggest trying to find some factual evidence that supports your claims. ***
W would have us believe that anyone who makes a valid inquiry as to his course of actions is unpatriotic. Similarly, Christine would have us believe that pointing out facts or questioning her assertions in somehow personally insulting.
Well, at least you have two things in common in W: a belief that you are always right, even when its proven you are not. And the ability to make assertions (eg. WMD) on absolutely no basis whatsoever.
We apparently share a distaste of W.(Although you have certainly not "proven" I am wrong, and your assertion that my assertions have no basis has no basis.)
*** your assertion that my assertions have no basis has no basis ***Only according to you. Not according to your customer, racerguy. And also not according to a patent filed with the US Patent Office.
Not true. I have provide many bases for my assertions. You may disagree with my conclusion, but that doesn't negate the bases themselves.
No, your "bases" are irrelevant or wrong. They are irrelevant because they are essentially your unsubstantiated guesses relating to one specific implementation of HDCD. And you have made quite a few statements that are just flat out wrong.
Christine wrote, "your unsubstantiated guesses".You are wrong again. I have substantiated my reasoning in great detail in this thread. I will not bother to repeat myself here.
As far as "one specific implementation" goes, guess what? There have only ever been two ways to make an HDCD disc -- the Pacific Microsonics Model One and Model Two. The main difference between these two units is that the Model Two supports sample rates above 44.1 kHz. (I don't think there are any other substantive differences between these. If you know of any, please feel free to point them out.)
Everything I've posted pertains to these two units, and therefore to every HDCD disc ever made (unless there are some Reference Recordings discs made with a prototype encoder).
As far as your claims regarding Pacific Microsonics' patent, let me ask you a couple of questions.
a) Do you think that there have ever been patents granted that weren't turned into commercial products?
b) Do you think there were ever patents granted that were turned into commercial products, but in a slightly different form?
*** You are wrong again. I have substantiated my reasoning in great detail in this thread. I will not bother to repeat myself here. ***Well, at least you are consistent in that whenever you call me wrong, you are wrong.
You have definitely not substantiated your reasoning in the same way as I have - by referencing a patent that describes the invention, and actual graphs from an implementation by the current owner of the patent. Instead, you have a set of wild guesses, dubious inferences, incorrect interpretations and assertions that are not substantiated and many of them have been shown to be incorrect.
PS - I have no idea why you say the WMP implementation is not following the spec. Again, perhaps you have reading comprehension issues? According to my reading, it does.
*** As far as "one specific implementation" goes, guess what? There have only ever been two ways to make an HDCD disc ***
You definitely have a reading comprehension issue. We are talking about HDCD playback, not HDCD content creation. Even if there is only ONE way to make HDCD discs, so what? There are definitely multiple ways of HDCD playback - so your ramblings and guesses about the inner workings of the PMD 100 (which is a playback device by the way) are completely irrelevant.
Also we are talking about what HDCD is or isn't. That is purely defined by the patent, not the implementation. So when you say HDCD is this and HDCD is not this, you are basically flat wrong, regardless of what you think the implementation is or isn't.
*** As far as your claims regarding Pacific Microsonics' patent, let me ask you a couple of questions. ***
These questions are irrelevant. Actually, you don't need to have any commercial products for a patent to be valid (witness the case between NTP and RIM over wireless email). So, regardless of whether an invention is ever realised in a practical form, it is still described by the patent.
In the case of HDCD, however, there appears to be no evidence that what was implemented isn't EXACTLY what is documented in the patent. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
...into something that would be beyond impolite to state.Christine wrote, "In the case of HDCD, however, there appears to be no evidence that what was implemented isn't EXACTLY what is documented in the patent. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it."
I have already given this evidence many times in this thread. Since it didn't sink in any of the other many times I have said it, I won't bother to say it again.
Let's face it, you can't. You just end up repeating the same incorrect and irrelevant phrases with no substantiation again and again, but somehow in your mind that constitutes "evidence". You yourself have admitted that much of what you say is suggestive rather than a definitive proof.Incidentally, it takes two to tango. Perhaps before you start referring to me with adjectives such as "obstinence" and "something that would be beyond impolite to state" - perhaps you could look at yourself in the mirror. So far you have not apologised for quite a number of things I said that you have called out as "wrong" but which you have later acknowledged are correct. Given the ferocity of your rebuttals, surely you could find some magnamity in you to acknowledge your mistakes?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: