MQA part the 3rd - t't't'timing...

[Jim Audiomisc]

Thought it would make sense to start a new thread for this rather than tack it onto the previous one. I've now finished a draft of an examination looking at issues like dispersion, pre-ringing, etc. All being well, I'll have a finished version up in a day or so. Took time as I added a wider context so people can judge it better.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Did you mean to include the word “issues”?
I did think that it was normal to finish an investigation before declaring something as an issue?

 

[adamdea]

Did you mean to include the word “issues”?
I did think that it was normal to finish an investigation before declaring something as an issue?

Can't follow you.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Did you mean to include the word “issues”?
I did think that it was normal to finish an investigation before declaring something as an issue?

The way I read the OP, 'dispersion', 'pre-ringing' etc, are agreed as 'issues' in the wider sense. Whether, or to what extent, they are present in MQA is, presumably, the purpose of Jim's examination.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

The way it reads is “guilty until proven otherwise”, which has unfortunately been a fairly common theme as the description of planned MQA investigations.
Not exactly the standard way of conducting scientific investigations

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The way I read the OP, 'dispersion', 'pre-ringing' etc, are agreed as 'issues' in the wider sense. Whether, or to what extent, they are present in MQA is, presumably, the purpose of Jim's examination.

Yes. As in the way people raise "issues" to mean topics of interest that may be investigated, discussed, etc.

And as I mentioned, I'm doing this in a wider context so people can see the "issues" in perspective.

...and I wrote the posting having *done* the investigation, etc. Since then I've just been sorting out the Engerlush and my brilant sppoling, etc. Next comes turning the document into a webpage on my website. All being well, that'll happen tomorrow morning.

 

[Rosewind]

Don't feed Mr_ Sukebe.

"More pages of guff, and yet the comments I’ve read by MQA users were typically very positive. Funny that". MQA II, post #1102.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The way it reads is “guilty until proven otherwise”, which has unfortunately been a fairly common theme as the description of planned MQA investigations.
Not exactly the standard way of conducting scientific investigations

Your first sentence left out an initial: "To me..."

And as I indicated, I started this thread having completed the actual work and when I got to sorting out the write-up, graphics, etc. So I *had* by then 'concluded' the actual investigation into what I was going to deal with.

Took a while as I wanted to cover a number of things. Wider context for people to consider. When the page appears anyone interested can make up their own minds on what I've actually done - no need to jump to conclusions before it appears.

 

[adamdea]

The way it reads is “guilty until proven otherwise”

in what language?

 

[Joe Hutch]

'Issues' can be a slightly loaded term, with negative connotations, in US/English: 'He/she has some serious issues'. Maybe 'areas' or 'aspects' would be more neutral terms to use.

 

[adamdea]

'Issues' can be a slightly loaded term, with negative connotations, in US/English: 'He/she has some serious issues'. Maybe 'areas' or 'aspects' would be more neutral terms to use.

For that to be relevant the reader would have to have assumed that "issues like dispersion, pre-ringing" meant "issues with MQA like dispersion, pre-ringing". But the reader wouldn't do that, however eccentric his English, if he had the faintest idea what the article was about. (try making this work with pre-ringing and dispersion).
(correct, if utterly unnecessary, substitute terms -"topics", "subject areas")

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

As two of us have commented on it, then just maybe you don’t need to be that eccentric?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

'Issues' can be a slightly loaded term, with negative connotations, in US/English: 'He/she has some serious issues'. Maybe 'areas' or 'aspects' would be more neutral terms to use.

Well, the 'areas' of pre-ringing and dispersion are surely 'issues' in and of themselves. The question is the extent to which those acknowledged issues may, or may not, be exhibited by MQA.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

So wouldn’t it be better written as “whether MQA introduces pre-ringing and If so, is it at a level to be noticeable?”

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I don't see the need myself, but perhaps if English isn't your first language you might prefer something like that.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

By inference, are you chaps suggesting that I’m a very eccentric foreigner?

How about addressing the matters at hand, rather than trying to guess my mental state or ethnicity?

 

[adamdea]

So wouldn’t it be better written as “whether MQA introduces pre-ringing and If so, is it at a level to be noticeable?”

No.
Wow. I was assuming you were just pretending you had no idea. No it absolutely 100% does not mean that.And that is not about English it's the whole area. Pre -ringing is essentially a "problem" MQA is supposed to solve.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

By inference, are you chaps suggesting that I’m a very eccentric foreigner?

How about addressing the matters at hand, rather than trying to guess my mental state or ethnicity?

Your username leads one to assume you might not be a native, and your response to what is, to a native speaker, a pretty natural and clear way of expressing something, suggests that assumption has some validity. It's not an issue (see what I did there?), but a simple observation. And no, not eccentric. Only native Englishmen get to claim eccentricity. That's the law.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Just so you understand, I don’t consider your comment about eccentricity to be even slightly amusing.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

OK, sorry about the delay. Been a bit distracted by other things and the diagrams took longer to sort out than I'd intended.

The page is now up at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/MQA/OnImpulse/RingingInArrears.html

As usual, there will be typos, etc. But it should be readable.
The point wrt 'pre ringing' is that one of MQA's claims seems to be that they 'correct' the ADC with an implict assumption that pre-ringing is a 'bad thing'. That is questionable from basic IT sampling theory and also odd in practice. Hence I wanted to look at the matter with more than one factor involved... which took time. (Certain irony, there. )

OK, you can now argue on the basis of what I've actually written. I'm off for a cuppa and some cherry+sultana cake.

BTW I recommend anyone new to the pages I've written about MQA to read the others as well for the sake of context and so I can avoid being asked about things I already covered. Not yet added in all the crosslinks, but the ones present would give a leadin.