Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hardware sampling rates (Score 1) 121

by Midnight_Falcon (#47225613) Attached to: The Computer Security Threat From Ultrasonic Networks

Of course I use profanity. Audiophiles are fucking morons. They're dumber than people who wage political campaigns against vaccines. People who are afraid of vaccines at least have minor blips of correlation to base their fears off of, while the science simply shows no connection. Audiophiles have hard science and experimental data that actually proves they're wrong.

Sometimes, there is scientific data about audiophiles being wrong (like FLAC vs 320k MP3), but no..any idiot can tell the difference between a Cerwin-Vega PA and a Funktion One. Klippel tests can provide scientific data to analyze why this is the case. So, your argument is far too broad to be true. Also, inserting profanity rather than logic or anything to backup your claims shows you're making emotional arguments rather than scientific ones.

I'm not talking about frequency response, I'm talking about sample rate because the person I was replying to was talking about sample rate in relation to FLAC, MP3, etc., and the discussion thread is about limiting the sample rate of the sound card. Please read before you post.

FLAC vs MP3 is largely a result of the cutoff at 16khz of MP3 sound, and attentuation of treble frequencies. While someone might have talked about sampling rate (which does matter), the vast majority of the perceived difference in quality is due to the attentuion of treble frequencies. Thus, my comment was completely germane to the subject matter.

You're wrong about music production as well. People play instruments and they're recorded. There's a lot of digital manipulation, and lots of canned or digitally-generated samples are used, with some bands/artists using more than others, but the vast majority is still sourced from people playing instruments and singing into microphones. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with music - it simply has to do with sound and the reproduction thereof. You CANNOT hear any frequencies higher than 20 kHz. If there is a 99 kHz tone in the room interfering with things, you hear the interference pattern's effects in the human-audible range. You do not heat the 99 kHz tone. Everything you hear is within the human-audible range, and double that is enough to transparently reproduce any sound a human could ever hear.

I am not wrong about music production. Perhaps in the 90s when you acquired this knowledge it was true, but now this is not the case. Yes, people sing into microphones. That's where it ends. Hip hop music, pop music, electronica all use totally digital sources these days for the basslines, synth lines, and pretty much all the music besides vocals. Vocals themselves are manipulated to hell and back with vocoders, chorus, flanger etc. The second part of your statement is somewhat true but misleading. Yes, you do not hear the 99KHZ tone. However, if you have a 16khz audio signal with a 22khz overtone, many would describe the sound as being "warm" due to the interference of the higher-frequency overtone with the lower frequency signal.

Now this is just complete bullshit. If you can hear the speaker it is producing a pressure wave. If one speaker is a box and one speaker is a human they're still both producing pressure waves. When two pressure wavefronts collide, such as at your ear when you're hearing them, they interfere. A speaker's quality is measured by its ability to reproduce the input signal. For all speakers humans listen to, the highest frequency that matters in 20 kHz. You cannot hear anything higher than that. You are not special. Any audible interference from higher frequency sources is already baked into the signal, and a doubled sampling rate covers any aliasing. A speaker's quality has nothing to do with your ability to engage in conversation in front of the speaker. If I output the inverse of what you're saying people wouldn't be able to hear you, by design. If I output exactly what you were saying people would be able to hear you more loudly. If I output X people's ability to hear you depends entirely on the interference between X and what you're saying and their own brain being able to concentrate and fill in gaps. The speaker's quality has to do with how well X matches the input. There is no connection between your conversation and the speaker's quality.

You are a madman. Never did I claim to hear abovd 20KHZ or anything outrageous. There is a great deal of connection between the speaker (and amplifier and processor's) quality and your ability to hear a conversation at normal volume in front of it. Because of the speaker quality matching the input so well, it does not distort into other frequencies. Thus, it is easier for a human ear to pick out normal conversation and removes the need to shout. I have countless times had to shout over subwoofers/etc to talk to people at a club or party, but also, countless times when good quality soundsystems are used (like Danley, Funktion-One) with quality processing and components, I am able to have a conversation a couple meters in front of the soundsystem at normal volume 100% intelliglbly.

Comment: Re:Hardware sampling rates (Score 2) 121

by Midnight_Falcon (#47225033) Attached to: The Computer Security Threat From Ultrasonic Networks
You use profanity to refer to audiophiles and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 96 or 192kHZ sampling rate doesn't have much to do with frequency response , which is what we are takling about.

Most music these days is not produced via an analog signal to a microphone. Rather, a digital process creates an analog waveform in software like Ableton Live, Cubase, etc. If an overtone or other sonic artifacts are applied, you can definitely hear the effects on the music even though these are at high frequencies..

Speakers are graded for quality using the "Klippel" test, which measures amount of distortion and how clean the signal comes out at various frequencies. With good speakers, you should be able to have a conversation right in front of them at loud volume, and not have to speak loudly or bring up your voice to clearly understand the person. That is because the audio waveform will be clean and not distort other frequencies.

Comment: Re:Hardware sampling rates (Score 0) 121

by Midnight_Falcon (#47224997) Attached to: The Computer Security Threat From Ultrasonic Networks

While this is true, in that "warmth" is perceived by human ears somewhere in the 16KHZ-25KHZ range, over 30KHZ won't even create a "warm" sensation to human ears. In the range of this network, which from TFA appears to be 20khz, many humans will be able to hear something.

If music is properly recorded and mastered, it will typically not contain any artifacts above the 25-30KHZ range. If you are playing music on a high-end system above this range, typically one will apply a high pass filter on their digital processor or amplifier in order to filter out ultrasonic frequencies, which may damage tweeters trying to reproduce sound beyond their response range.

Disclaimer: I am an audiophile. I use speaker drivers, custom enclosures, and high-end amps like QSC and ZED Audio.

Comment: Re:No Qi? (Score 1) 196

by Midnight_Falcon (#46827725) Attached to: OnePlus One Revealed: a CyanogenMod Smartphone
I don't see it listed in the specs but I also don't see it listed as not being there. I agree, I have an N5 and use wireless charging at my desk, and especially in my car ($40 Qi-charging vent-mounted dock is a godsend) -- so while the rest of this phone seems pretty awesome, I'd lament the loss of Qi.

Comment: Re:Can I pay not to have to watch it? (Score 1) 137

by Midnight_Falcon (#46810305) Attached to: Joss Whedon Releases New Film On Demand
You're right about this..(e.g. River in Firefly) but on top of that, his shows have a very Orange-County/SoCal vibe to them..everything is very polished and Hollywood-esque. It would be much more realistic to have characters who look more rugged, look the part and not like they all live in LA and have daily skin treatments. All of the characters in Whedon's shows emphasize this Southern California plasticy concept of beauty, which is somewhat repulsive to my (and I'm sure others') tastes.

Comment: Re:Anonymous on the internet? (Score 1) 171

by Midnight_Falcon (#46773689) Attached to: Snowden Used the Linux Distro Designed For Internet Anonymity

No, actually, and the hubris of your "Next" comment is telling about how you summarily dismissed this without doing any actual research. Have you ever actually tried to do a traffic correlation attack? Do you even know how Tor works?

Tor, in order to defeat traffic correlation attacks (or at least make them much more difficult), re-negotiates its connection to use a different circuit every ten minutes. The NSA themselves in the leaked "Tor Stinks" document even pointed to this as being extremely difficult, if not impossible, to track users through. The NSA admits that even with manual analysis, only a small fraction of tor users can be exposed. Reference.

Comment: Re:NSA boogeyman (Score 1) 171

by Midnight_Falcon (#46763265) Attached to: Snowden Used the Linux Distro Designed For Internet Anonymity
Regardless of this (and please enlighten us to what they are called rather than just dismiss), common parlance is to refer to NSA employees as Agents. Just google "NSA Agent" to see countless journalistic reports about NSA Employees referred to as "Agents" (outside of the context of covert operations video game nonsense)....same is true with other agencies. And yes, they do have "Special Agent" etc ranks. However, they will not permit ex-employees to use such designations on their resumes and force them to use other titles like "Clerk" or "Analyst."

Comment: Re:What a shame (Score 1) 171

by Midnight_Falcon (#46761969) Attached to: Snowden Used the Linux Distro Designed For Internet Anonymity
Yes, it matters a lot and renders the use of OpenSSL in Tails being a security issue moot -- any client would have this issue. Additionally, Tails' security practices also enforce use of things like Perfect Forward Secrecy when available. Also, most Tor nodes utilize PFS between nodes. Again, Tails' security architecture helps defend users against zero-day exploits.

Comment: Re:Tails is awesome (Score 1) 171

by Midnight_Falcon (#46761867) Attached to: Snowden Used the Linux Distro Designed For Internet Anonymity

Former CIA agents are not current CIA agents.

As the Cambodian situation became worse, the Cambodian government sought military assistance from the United States and South Vietnam.

-- Across the Border: Sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos

This is an official military source that misses the point that the "government" of Cambodia was not de facto sovereign at the time, nor legal..the request came from Lon Nol, a pro-US general who was just installed in a coup d'etat.

The US was out of South Vietnam in 1975. That is nearly 40 years ago. I doubt there are many CIA agents that were working in Vietnam still working at the CIA.

They'd be 60-70 years old but it's still quite possible. The CIA doesn't really publish lists of employees so this can be checked.

Iran Contra is also well into the past. And once again, a former Director of CIA is not a current Director or employee.

The internet certainly did exist in the 1980s.

Yes, but mostly as U.S-only network, it would be more accurate to say the "Internet did not exist in the way we know it today". CERN and Europe didn't largely uplink into the TCP/IP-based internet until Wall.

The real contributor to freedom was the CIA, not the small Tails project only a few years old.

If you think that the CIA contributed to "freedom" then you speak propaganda only. The CIA contributed to realpolitik, and only came to create "freedom" in places that mattered to the U.S.'s strategic interests. In the same way the KGB helped enforce a "prison of states" around Eastern Europe, the CIA helped foster a similar situation in South America. See Guatemalan Coup . Let's not forget also about Chile and Grenada. Also, the CIA helped stifle dissent in America and reduce American political freedoms during thist ime. Reference: Operation CHAOS

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz