I suppose it is nice that you can amuse yourself, but I think you still do not get the point of the thread. Your suggestions for hex editor, or other file comparisons, could not be even slightly useful if the program’s (CE2K) processing with floating point were at fault. There is nothing to compare until audio editor type processing has been done.
While my writing may indeed be less clear than I would like, and thus difficult for you to understand, the purpose of this thread was to ask if my results were what one should expect (whether or not they interest you) or indicated faulty software. I thought earlier posts indicated that information had finally filtered through.
I also suspect that no one other than you read any “intimation of violence” on my part from my recitation of that little narrative.
Probably not amused. 'Soundly beaten' might not be violent in AndyH's world, & while I've lived on streets that buffered crips & bloods, on which early onset Russian mob were making forays, I still view 'soundly beaten' as a suggestion of violence! Maybe it is just me?
But AndyH is effectively correct that I fail to understand the point. Since not all possible operations one can execute in audio editing apps are commutative it is possible to create two iterations employing the same operations but following different sequence and produce different results. Those results are not anomalous, but flow directly from the limits of any tool (i.e. Math) and the initial conditions. If I had understood AndyH's physical sequence of operation I would not have replied. The initial question was roughly the equivalent to asking, 'The sun is yellow?' And it might or might not be, but conventionally we accept that as a condition of colloquial communication. -168 dB is just as much general audio as is the color of the sun.
Apparently, by way of Youngloves post, that (two iterations with non commutative operations executed in differing order) is what AndyH did. And AndyH's would be the expected, not unexpected outcome. It is also trivial and a bit pointless. And it is because I thought AndyH might (surprisingly) be raising a genuine issue with an obsolete but still useful application that I took the time to examine what I mistakenly thought to be the issue.
When my daughter was three she discovered, on her own apparently, that if one added two even numbers the result was even, if one added two odd numbers the result was even but if one added an even and an odd the result was odd. I am not sure that at that time she knew how to define even and odd (conditionally, she knew 3 was odd, 4 even). She employed this knowledge, primarily, numerologically. Switching her allegiance from seven to eight. Torturing the rest of the family with numerological necessities based on 'odds' & 'evens'.
While, at three, she had yet to evolve to 'math' logic, was in fact still pre-logical, I still found the underlying reasoning to be worthy of praise. Now if, at twenty eight, she came to me with the same observations, even allowing that she is militantly 'math challenged', while I would still pin the results to the front of the refrigerator I would understand when friends patted me on the shoulder and said, "Well, we all know she's special!"
AndyH created & limited conditions in which two sequences produced two different results, based on well understood, elementary, relatively fundamental properties. He was then surprised that the 'pre logical' or 'con artist change making three card monte' manipulation produced those inevitable differing outcomes? To beat the metaphor into the ground he then uses the con artist change making three card monte techniques to suggest that 'something' (everyone throw their hands up and wave them all about, the sky is falling, the sky is falling) is wrong with the application (At a time when we should be backing out the driveway: "I can't wear this yellow shirt today. Today's Thursday, an odd day! Yellow's an even color! I told you last night! Foot stomp. Arms crossed!). . . He's still going to use the app he is not going to pursue any independent (no matter how cheap to free it might be) analysis of the results (because how could any possible bit by bit comparison of two binaries possibly confirm or deny if the results of the two sequences actually produced different results? And such an analysis could not possibly help, in any way, with the diagnostic tree! Prior to discovering what art costs I had considerable experience it developing techniques to distinguish inevitable artifact from statistically significant data. To pointlessly assert unprovable conditions, this is an area in which I am not completely ignorant. Of course even within that community it is quite easy to prolong fierce debates, for nine months, concerning whether a chi-square test is useful or even appropriate for analyzing population densities in a grid extended to three dimensions . . . If you think this is boring imagine that daily debate!)
To then couch the con artist change making three card monte, perhaps self deception as akin to scholastic reasoning is extreme hubris. Or perhaps if it is merely pre-logical he, AndyH, might now be willing to explore that possibility (quietly, on his own).
Far from demonstrating weaknesses in CE math the approach tends to reinforce the idea that the fundamental math programing of the CE was . . . Accurate. Which accuracy is fortunately more or less what you would expect. (That '96 versions of PT had some 'math challenged' elements is one of the reasons I've remained with CE and its evolutionary offspring). But this is still not 'general audio'. If you can't hear it, if no one anywhere, including cats, bats, whales, can hear it, -168 dB s/n crosses that threshold, it's not 'audio', let alone 'general audio, by definition. (above, roughly 160 bpm, humans no longer differentiate changes (in bpm) as tempo but as frequency, this, too, is interjected as 'metaphor' because I will admit to having ruthlessly abandoned any 'logical' underpinning for the deliberately chaotic world of aesthetics . . . Dancing architecture is the norm not exception . . . So if AndyH had shifted the goal posts of the thread to an aesthetic exercise, rather then attempted to tilt in the direction of scholastic logic I probably could have shut up quickerer!).
For AndyH to not perceive that he introduced the intimation of violence directly challenges his implied association with the 'logic masters' . . . His self denial in this area is either disingenuous or illogical. Either of those conditions crashes a semi through his current goal post shifting from 'practical' to 'logic exercise'! And if perhaps if it is merely pre-logical he, AndyH, might now be willing to explore that possibility (quietly, on his own).
And I will admit that replying here passes beyond the 'churlish' into childish but it aint done out of amusement. It is a low impact exercise that skirts the type of communication issues I deal with every day. The non low impact ones leave me with a numbed sense of amazement, preferable to ones brain exploding, at 'crazy monkey [mental] jujitzu' . . . . 'How in the hell did you manage to do that and retain that self satisfied look on your face?' One should have at least broken a sweat!
To reiterate: in 1642 to open one's hand and have the enclosed rock, fall and hit the earth at one's feet might have been worthy of intense logical speculation. Today, even for those not conversant in Newtonian physics, it is the colloquially excepted condition. For someone to independently stumble on 'conditions', to exercise curiosity to explore principals underlying those conditions is laudatory.
Unfortunately by no effort of 'crazy monkey [mental] jujitzu' is that (laudatory curiosity) what AndyH is displaying. It has been suggested, not merely by me, that if AndyH brushed up on audio fundamentals he might not spend quite so much time reinventing the obvious, i.e. The yellow sun, that gravity will gravely get the rock from hand to dirt. After seven years it is unlikely that AndyH clearly understands that he lacks the rudiments to discuss the topics he interjects. The topic here is trivial, but the equivalent logic is employed in other posts and broaching the idea, with this equivalent logic, that IV application of tocopherol might be a sound strategy for delaying or reversing inevitable age and industrial hearing loss is not trivial. I think AndyH has every 'right' to display 'crazy monkey [mental] jujitzu', occasionally, not amused, I might not let some of the ideas go unchallenged! (I would hope that I would not be guilty of intimating violence to those who disagreed with me. . . It is the propensity for disagreement with things I believe, learning from that disagreement, that keeps me returning).
If I used emoticons (and I'm emoticon challenged) I'd insert one here with something like 'peace out' ah, well lunch over time to get back to editing the 12 sec 14 track intro to 'Call the Doctor'
Author
