Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] seeking old Kaiser paper From: "Richard F. Lyon" <dicklyon@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:06:23 -0800 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--94eb2c1afadacc41510565426852 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems unlikely that a couple of guys from Denver and Boulder, who wrote three editions of a good book, and authored some other papers, would not be legit. Here are papers by Richard A. Roberts: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D%22RICHARD+A.= +ROBERTS%22 He wrote a book on Signal Detectability in 1965: https://books.google.com/books?id=3DHUtXFud4u_8C&q=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.= +Roberts%22&dq=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ah= UKEwj_v8fspajZAhUP-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEIPTAE (so he probably retired before the web became a big thing). and he wrote a book on DSP in 1987: https://books.google.com/books?id=3DGiBoQgAACAAJ&dq=3D%22richard+a+roberts%= 22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwj7q5i5pajZAhUEwlQKHeqBAeUQ6AEIKTAA and a book on probability in 1992: https://books.google.com/books?id=3DhSDvAAAAMAAJ&q=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.= +Roberts%22&dq=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ah= UKEwj_v8fspajZAhUP-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEINDAC Robert A. Gabel was with Bede Liu at Princeton, and then C.U. Boulder EE department according to this paper: https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=3Dao-9-5-1180 and looks like maybe he became or physiologist, or is that someone with the same name? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D%22robert+a+g= abel%22&btnG=3D Dick On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Sharath chandra <looplogic@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Richard > > I've heard of this thing going around called 'predatory publishing'. It's > has dark underground roots, involving amazing manuscripts and books that > capture the essence of leading research from different sources compiled > into a single publication, written by a team of 'ghost authors' > > There is a high chance that Gabel and Roberts are fictitious names/ghost > authorships of what indeed could be a book of amazing content. > Google search for these authors reveals close to nothing. > > Regards > Sharath > > > > > On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, Richard F. Lyon <dicklyon@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> More on gammatones in the Gabel & Roberts "Signals and Linear Systems" >> book: >> >> I got the 1980 second edition and 1973 first edition. Like the 1987 >> third, they have a table of z transforms of sampled impulse responses of >> gammatone-like filters (complex gammatones); the second and third go to >> order 4, but the first goes all the way to order 5! The fifth order has >> numerator [1, 11, 11, 1], which I haven't checked, but seems plausible; >> that makes zeros at z =3D -9.8990, -1.0000, -0.1010. >> >> In terms of the funny correction to impulse invariance for impulses with >> a step at t =3D 0 that Leland Jackson and Wolfgang Mecklenbra=C3=BCker s= eparately >> published in 2000, yes, it's in all three editions of Gabel & Roberts, >> going back to 1973; and not quite in any of Jim Kaiser's papers. >> >> Speaking of Jim Kaiser, I sent him a copy of my book, which was delivere= d >> yesterday; his son says "He couldn't remember receiving the book >> yesterday. Our healthcare worker found the book this morning on his nig= ht >> stand. He had already started reading it but forgot that he had! He >> appreciated your inscription. He was able to recall your interactions a= t >> Bell in the early 70's. Long term memory still seems relatively good." >> Jim is 89, living in Chapel Hill NC. >> >> One other reader of this list tells me he's a big fan of Gabel & Roberts= , >> recently read it cover to cover, and is planning to use it for a course. >> It's still in print at a low price in Asian markets. >> >> I repeat my question: does anybody know these guys (Robert A. Gabel >> and/or Richard A. Roberts)? >> >> Dick >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Richard F. Lyon <dicklyon@xxxxxxxx> wrote= : >> >>> I got a copy that Jim Beauchamp found in a library near him. Thanks, >>> Jim. >>> >>> If anyone wants a copy, let me know. Or of the 1964 Golden & Kaiser >>> BSTJ paper. >>> >>> The "correction" term in the 1966 version is not there in 1963, nor in >>> 1964. >>> >>> The correction term would not be needed, and the problem would never >>> have existed, if the discrete impulse response at h[0] had been defined= in >>> terms of the continuous impulse response h(t) as (h(0-) + h(0+)/2; that= is, >>> as the average across the step discontinuity at 0 if there is one, as t= wo >>> different papers in 2000 pointed out. The examples in the older papers= and >>> the correction term in the 1966 paper make it clear that such a reasona= ble >>> choice was not made at that time. >>> >>> This issue (but not its history) is covered in great detail in the 1987 >>> book Signals and Linear Systems, third edition, by Gabel and Roberts (d= oes >>> anyone know these guys?). I haven't looked at earlier editions. They = not >>> only discuss the discontinuity in depth, but also address repeated pole= s, >>> which are ignored in most treatments, and provide a table up to order 4 >>> repeated poles, which agrees precisely with Volker Hohmann's derivation= of >>> zeros in the numerator of the impulse-invariance design of discrete-tim= e >>> complex gammatone filters: a numerator [1, 4, 1] independent of pole >>> frequencies and dampings, yielding zeros at z =3D -3.7321 and z =3D -0.= 2679, >>> which do just a little smoothing on top of the repeated-poles filter. >>> >>> Dick >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Richard F. Lyon <dicklyon@xxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone have the 1963 Proceedings of the First Allerton Conference >>>> on Circuit and System Theory? Or just "Design methods for sampled-dat= a >>>> filters" by J. F. Kaiser? >>>> >>>> I'm trying to resolve a disconnect in derivations of the >>>> impulse-invariance method, which was "corrected" in several places ove= r the >>>> years, though Kaiser had the key to the correction in his chapter "Dig= ital >>>> Filters" in the 1966 "System Analysis by Digital Computer" book, in wh= ich >>>> he says his stuff on IIR design closely follows that missing paper as = well >>>> as a BSTJ paper that does not have the key piece. >>>> >>>> The key observation is that using the naive impulse invariance method >>>> adds a constant (frequency independent) term to the frequency response= of >>>> the digital filter proportional to the impulse response on the right s= ide >>>> of time zero: T/2 * h(0+). He didn't go as far as the "corrections" w= hich >>>> said to take the impulse response h[k] at k =3D 0 to be (h(0-) + h(0+)= )/2, >>>> though it's pretty obvious from there. It's funny that at some point = he >>>> got as far as including that unwanted term yet didn't comment on the e= asy >>>> way to remove it. Maybe in the missing paper... >>>> >>>> Dick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> --94eb2c1afadacc41510565426852 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>It seems unlikely that a couple of guys from Denver a= nd Boulder, who wrote three editions of a good book, and authored some othe= r papers, would not be legit.<br><br></div><div>Here are papers by Richard = A. Roberts:<br><a href=3D"https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=3Den&as= _sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D%22RICHARD+A.+ROBERTS%22">https://scholar.google.com/s= cholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D%22RICHARD+A.+ROBERTS%22</a><br><= /div><div><br>He wrote a book on Signal Detectability in 1965:<br><a href= =3D"https://books.google.com/books?id=3DHUtXFud4u_8C&q=3Dinauthor:%22Ri= chard+A.+Roberts%22&dq=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&= amp;sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwj_v8fspajZAhUP-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEIPTAE">https://boo= ks.google.com/books?id=3DHUtXFud4u_8C&q=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Robert= s%22&dq=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&= ved=3D0ahUKEwj_v8fspajZAhUP-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEIPTAE</a><br></div><div>(so he pr= obably retired before the web became a big thing).<br><br></div><div>and he= wrote a book on DSP in 1987:<br><a href=3D"https://books.google.com/books?= id=3DGiBoQgAACAAJ&dq=3D%22richard+a+roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&a= mp;ved=3D0ahUKEwj7q5i5pajZAhUEwlQKHeqBAeUQ6AEIKTAA">https://books.google.co= m/books?id=3DGiBoQgAACAAJ&dq=3D%22richard+a+roberts%22&hl=3Den&= sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwj7q5i5pajZAhUEwlQKHeqBAeUQ6AEIKTAA</a><br></div><di= v>and a book on probability in 1992:<br><a href=3D"https://books.google.com= /books?id=3DhSDvAAAAMAAJ&q=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&dq= =3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUK= Ewj_v8fspajZAhUP-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEINDAC">https://books.google.com/books?id=3Dh= SDvAAAAMAAJ&q=3Dinauthor:%22Richard+A.+Roberts%22&dq=3Dinauthor:%22= Richard+A.+Roberts%22&hl=3Den&sa=3DX&ved=3D0ahUKEwj_v8fspajZAhU= P-J8KHft6CdMQ6AEINDAC</a><br><br></div><div>Robert A. Gabel was with Bede L= iu at Princeton, and then C.U. Boulder EE department according to this pape= r:<br><a href=3D"https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=3Dao-9-5= -1180">https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=3Dao-9-5-1180</a><= br></div><div>and looks like maybe he became or physiologist, or is that so= meone with the same name?<br></div><div><a href=3D"https://scholar.google.c= om/scholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D%22robert+a+gabel%22&btnG= =3D">https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=3Den&as_sdt=3D1%2C5&q=3D= %22robert+a+gabel%22&btnG=3D</a><br><br></div>Dick<br><br><br></div><di= v class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 15, 2018= at 7:25 AM, Sharath chandra <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:looplo= gic@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">looplogic@xxxxxxxx</a>></span> wrote:<= br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left= :1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Dear Richard<div><br></d= iv><div>I've heard of this thing going around called 'predatory pub= lishing'. It's has dark underground roots, involving amazing manusc= ripts and books that capture the essence of leading research from different= sources compiled into a single publication, written by a team of 'ghos= t authors'</div><div><br></div><div>There is a high chance that Gabel a= nd Roberts are fictitious names/ghost authorships of what indeed could be a= book of amazing content.=C2=A0</div><div>Google search for these authors r= eveals close to nothing.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards<span class=3D"HOE= nZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>Sharath</font></span></div><div><br></div>= <div><br></div><div><span class=3D""><br><br>On Tuesday, February 13, 2018,= Richard F. Lyon <<a href=3D"mailto:dicklyon@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">= dicklyon@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"= style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><d= iv dir=3D"ltr"><span class=3D""><div><div><div><div>More on gammatones in t= he Gabel & Roberts "Signals and Linear Systems" book:<br><br>= </div>I got the 1980 second edition and 1973 first edition.=C2=A0 Like the = 1987 third, they have a table of z transforms of sampled impulse responses = of gammatone-like filters (complex gammatones); the second and third go to = order 4, but the first goes all the way to order 5!=C2=A0 The fifth order h= as numerator [1, 11, 11, 1], which I haven't checked, but seems plausib= le; that makes zeros at z =3D -9.8990, -1.0000, -0.1010.<br><br></div>In te= rms of the funny correction to impulse invariance for impulses with a step = at t =3D 0 that Leland Jackson and Wolfgang Mecklenbra=C3=BCker separately = published in 2000, yes, it's in all three editions of Gabel & Rober= ts, going back to 1973; and not quite in any of Jim Kaiser's papers.<br= ><br>Speaking of Jim Kaiser, I sent him a copy of my book, which was delive= red yesterday; his son says "He couldn't remember receiving the bo= ok yesterday.=C2=A0 Our healthcare worker found the book this morning on hi= s night stand.=C2=A0 He had already started reading it but forgot that he h= ad!=C2=A0 He appreciated your inscription.=C2=A0 He was able to recall your= interactions at Bell in the early 70's.=C2=A0 Long term memory still s= eems relatively good."=C2=A0 Jim is 89, living in Chapel Hill NC.<br><= br></div>One other reader of this list tells me he's a big fan of Gabel= & Roberts, recently read it cover to cover, and is planning to use it = for a course.=C2=A0 It's still in print at a low price in Asian markets= .<br><br></div><div>I repeat my question: does anybody know these guys (Rob= ert A. Gabel and/or Richard A. Roberts)?<br></div><div><br></div>Dick<br><b= r></span><div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br><div><br><br></div><div class=3D"g= mail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:19 PM, = Richard F. Lyon <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:dicklyon@xxxxxxxx" t= arget=3D"_blank">dicklyon@xxxxxxxx</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote clas= s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r= gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><span><div><div><div><di= v>I got a copy that Jim Beauchamp found in a library near him.=C2=A0 Thanks= , Jim.<br><br></div>If anyone wants a copy, let me know.=C2=A0 Or of the 19= 64 Golden & Kaiser BSTJ paper.<br><br></div>The "correction" = term in the 1966 version is not there in 1963, nor in 1964.<br><br></div>Th= e correction term would not be needed, and the problem would never have exi= sted, if the discrete impulse response at h[0] had been defined in terms of= the continuous impulse response h(t) as (h(0-) + h(0+)/2; that is, as the = average across the step discontinuity at 0 if there is one, as two differen= t papers in 2000 pointed out.=C2=A0 The examples in the older papers and th= e correction term in the 1966 paper make it clear that such a reasonable ch= oice was not made at that time.</div><div><br></div><div>This issue (but no= t its history) is covered in great detail in the 1987 book Signals and Line= ar Systems, third edition, by Gabel and Roberts (does anyone know these guy= s?).=C2=A0 I haven't looked at earlier editions.=C2=A0 They not only di= scuss the discontinuity in depth, but also address repeated poles, which ar= e ignored in most treatments, and provide a table up to order 4 repeated po= les, which agrees precisely with Volker Hohmann's derivation of zeros i= n the numerator of the impulse-invariance design of discrete-time complex g= ammatone filters: a numerator [1, 4, 1] independent of pole frequencies and= dampings, yielding zeros at z =3D -3.7321 and z =3D -0.2679, which do just= a little smoothing on top of the repeated-poles filter.<br></div><div><br>= </div>Dick<br><br></span><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail= _quote"><span>On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Richard F. Lyon <span dir=3D= "ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:dicklyon@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">dicklyon@xxxxxxxx= m.org</a>></span> wrote:<br></span><div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,= 204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Does anyon= e have the 1963 Proceedings of the First Allerton Conference on Circuit and= System Theory?=C2=A0 Or just "Design methods for sampled-data filters= " by J. F. Kaiser?=C2=A0 <br><br></div>I'm trying to resolve a dis= connect in derivations of the impulse-invariance method, which was "co= rrected" in several places over the years, though Kaiser had the key t= o the correction in his chapter "Digital Filters" in the 1966 &qu= ot;System Analysis by Digital Computer" book, in which he says his stu= ff on IIR design closely follows that missing paper as well as a BSTJ paper= that does not have the key piece.=C2=A0 <br><br></div>The key observation = is that using the naive impulse invariance method adds a constant (frequenc= y independent) term to the frequency response of the digital filter proport= ional to the impulse response on the right side of time zero: T/2 * h(0+).= =C2=A0 He didn't go as far as the "corrections" which said to= take the impulse response h[k] at k =3D 0 to be (h(0-) + h(0+))/2, though = it's pretty obvious from there.=C2=A0 It's funny that at some point= he got as far as including that unwanted term yet didn't comment on th= e easy way to remove it.=C2=A0 Maybe in the missing paper...<br><br></div>D= ick<br><br><div><div><br></div></div></div> </div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div> </blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div> </blockquote></div> </div> </blockquote></div><br></div> --94eb2c1afadacc41510565426852--