[gregorio]

quantifiable = something that can be measured and assigned a value to
To quantify something means to measure something with value
e.g.
detectable = something that can be detected if it happens
To detect something means to check if something happens.

So that’s a “No” then, you did not read the article you quoted before butchering it? That’s demonstrating critical thinking is it? If you had read it, you would have noticed that apart from the graphic you keep reposting, there are some other pretty pictures, some of which detect and quantify the ringing in response to a Dirac pulse!

I didn't say audio recording. Looks like the phrase "audio recording" appears in your mind? Illusion?

Yep, my bad. Just out of curiosity, if you’re not using an anti-image/reconstruction filter to reconstruct audio recordings, what are you using it for??

Nothing malicious or anything. Just curious to know what sunjam thinks regarding those two articles.

Oh good god don’t ask him that! I can only imagine how he’s going to butcher archimago after the hatchet job he’s done on simpler articles!

G

 

[sunjam]

Hmm.... my mind is very confused now.

 

[gregorio]

Hmm.... my mind is very confused now.

What do you mean “now”?

G

 

[sunjam]

What do you mean “now”?

G

Look at the capture I posted. Did you talk to the right person? Or did I make a mistake?

 

[gregorio]

Did you talk to the right person?

No, I didn’t, my apologies to @theveterans and @sunjam on this occasion, I wrongly misread the post below as from sunjam rather than to him.

G

@sunjam

Let me know about your thoughts about these articles, and it might answer some of your questions regarding ringing, oversampling, etc.

You can be critical with these articles too, and let us know what you find that is critical to the two articles below:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/12/howto-musings-playing-with-digital_23.html
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/audiophile-myth-260-detestable-digital.html

 

[theveterans]

Hmm.... my mind is very confused now.

It's better to gather as much information as needed, and construct factual evidences supporting claims. With my opinion though, very, very few in the world, preferably under 10 years old (under blind DBT ABX test) can hear the ringing from linear phase fast roll off against a NOS 16/44.1 (broken filter and treble roll-off duh) with some of the worst offending loudness war tracks produced. Correct me if I'm wrong sunjam, you can hear in sighted conditions the differences between two different oversampling filters (internal DAC against HQPlayer) and is asking why hi-res matters in digital playback, opposing Monty's view in his video?

 

[sunjam]

So that’s a “No” then, you did not read the article you quoted before butchering it? That’s demonstrating critical thinking is it? If you had read it, you would have noticed that apart from the graphic you keep reposting, there are some other pretty pictures, some of which detect and quantify the ringing in response to a Dirac pulse!

Yep, my bad. Just out of curiosity, if you’re not using an anti-image/reconstruction filter to reconstruct audio recordings, what are you using it for??

Oh good god don’t ask him that! I can only imagine how he’s going to butcher archimago after the hatchet job he’s done on simpler articles!

G

Please let me be more specific.

If ringing artifacts happens when a DAC reconstructs the audio signal from a music file (i.e. real music, not any testing signal), can we tell if ringing happens?

If we can tell ringing happens in the above case, can we measure its "severity level"?

 

[theveterans]

Please let me be more specific.

If ringing artifacts happens when a DAC reconstructs the audio signal from a music file (i.e. real music, not any testing signal), can we tell if ringing happens?

If we can tell ringing happens in the above case, can we measure its "severity level"?

According to the Archimago, ringing happens on some music tracks (especially those that fell to loudness wars):
Archimago also states that ringing is very minimal and non existent on non-clipped recordings
Question is, will you pass a credible with enough evidence DBT ABX volume matched (if oversampling to DSD) differences between two oversampling filters that are both linear phase?

 

[gregorio]

With my opinion though, very, very few in the world, preferably under 10 years old (under blind DBT ABX test) can hear the ringing from linear phase fast roll off against a NOS 16/44.1 (broken filter and treble roll-off duh) with some of the worst offending loudness war tracks produced.

I have not seen any verified, reliable evidence that anyone can, even under 10 year olds. There is quite lot which indicates that adults can’t though. This paper by Nittono in 2020, “Moreover, the high-cut sounds examined in this study contained a temporal distortion (i.e. blurred onset and offset), which might be detected in the conventional auditory pathway. The lack of the corresponding electrocortical responses suggests that the auditory sensory memory cannot register the characteristics of a high-resolution grade sound (both high-frequency components and sharp onset and offset) …” - Demonstrated the ringing from a linear phase fast roll off filter doesn’t even register in the auditory cortex. Of course, we can’t prove a negative but there is quite a weight of evidence.

If ringing artifacts happens when a DAC reconstructs the audio signal from a music file (i.e. real music, not any testing signal), can we tell if ringing happens?
If we can tell ringing happens in the above case, can we measure its "severity level"?

How were the ringing artefacts in the article that you butchered measured?

G

 

[theveterans]

I have not seen any verified, reliable evidence that anyone can, even under 10 year olds. There is quite lot which indicates that adults can’t though. This paper by Nittono in 2020, “Moreover, the high-cut sounds examined in this study contained a temporal distortion (i.e. blurred onset and offset), which might be detected in the conventional auditory pathway. The lack of the corresponding electrocortical responses suggests that the auditory sensory memory cannot register the characteristics of a high-resolution grade sound (both high-frequency components and sharp onset and offset) …” - Demonstrated the ringing from a linear phase fast roll off filter doesn’t even register in the auditory cortex. Of course, we can’t prove a negative but there is quite a weight of evidence.

Thanks for the reference!

 

[eq1849]

Thanks for the reference!

You might enjoy this, as well...

High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285336/

 

[sunjam]

It's better to gather as much information as needed, and construct factual evidences supporting claims. With my opinion though, very, very few in the world, preferably under 10 years old (under blind DBT ABX test) can hear the ringing from linear phase fast roll off against a NOS 16/44.1 (broken filter and treble roll-off duh) with some of the worst offending loudness war tracks produced. Correct me if I'm wrong sunjam, you can hear in sighted conditions the differences between two different oversampling filters (internal DAC against HQPlayer) and is asking why hi-res matters in digital playback, opposing Monty's view in his video?

Hear the difference

I can hear in sighted conditions the differences between 44.1k/16 vs its 768/32 upsampled version (with HQPlayer). The difference is even stronger when I upsampled the same 44.1k/16 to DSD256.

The better the recording/mastering quality of the original CD, the stronger the difference I found.

I believe that the up-sampling filter play a major role here as I found the difference is not very strong when I used other upsampling software like foobar, roon, etc..

Hi-Res is useless? Why?

I didn't ask "why I hear the difference" because I know why.

I just wanted to find a better DAC for my upsampled DSD music. Then I asked in ASR (my first post there) to see if there is any budget DAC for DSD1024. Then I got tons of "Hi-Res is useles" replys from the senior/experienced members even the moderators there. Even an audio software development (looks to me he is well respected there) say the same thing... I feel that they want to brainwash me into believing that "Hi-Res is useles".

Given my thinking style, I asked them for the proof that why they believe objectively that "Hi-Res is useless".

They mainly come back with five reasons:

1. Sampling theory said 44.1k is enough
2. Based on science, the difference is so samll so that you cannot hear it
3. They show me the Monty's video and it proves that 44.1k can reconstruct perfect smooth sine wave ouput
4. You are not bat, you cannot hear higher than 22k
5. There are research reports to show that you cannot hear the difference

I checked all these and found out all these are not supporting facts for the claims because there are some flaws in all these items.

Some of these sounds like a solid proof, e.g. the sampling theory. However, they forgot the tiny but important thing.... it's limitation.

The Monty's video and pseudo science

When I watched the Monty's video, I think I know why so many people believe in such claim.

His intention for creating the video:

He wrote an ariticle claiming "192/24 doesn't make sense". Many people read that and disagreed with his view point. One of the major areas for the argument was the stair step waveform.

Then he created the video to show (aka 'proof') that he is right especially regarding the perfect smooth sine wave reconstruction.

Pseudo science technique:

Probably he wanted to ensure that people would agree what he said, it looks to me (with my trained eyes) he was using some "pseudo science" technique to sell his demos. i.e. using very strong words (e.g. certainly, losslessly, exact, etc) and avoiding or omitting tiny but very important details and creating some illusion. For example,

he emphasized on his video that "a digital waveform is not a stair-step and you certainly don't get stair-step when you convert from digital back to analog" ("fact 1")
he emphasized on his article that "The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal" ("fact 2")

"fact 1" is not correct as the article I used for my blog showed stairstep waveform output from a modern DAC.
"fact 2" is correct only if the reconstruction is under ideal situation.

For "fact 1", he avoided mentioning any thing related to internal oversampling, filtering, NOS DAC, etc...
For "fact 2", he avoided mentioning about the ideal situation.

He use a smooth looking sine wave to demonstrate "fact 1" and "fact 2" are factual in order to create the illusion that his claims are correct.

I believe that it is one of the root cause of the claim "Hi-Res is useless". I feel the obligation to help to debunk these as many people are mis-led by the video and they belief in the claim wholeheartedly.

Start my blog

Given the banning culture on incompatible facts, I was stopped from showing more supporting facts in ASR. I decided to create my blog to help to debunk these issues.

I believe that the people there should be smart enough to tell what's true with their critical thinking.

============
Did I answer your question?

 

[bigshot]

I'd like to see a copy of the Bach French Suites they used to do the test. I would bet that there isn't a lot of ultrasonic content in a recording of acoustic instruments, if any at all. What would it be? Harpsichord?

I just scanned the paper because I'm working, but what is the link between the ability to multitask while listening to music and "relaxed arousal"? How many participants and how many tests each?

I'll be interested to see what Gregorio has to say about this test.

 

[sunjam]

You might enjoy this, as well...

High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285336/

Hi-Res perception is another large topic. Given the discussion we have so far, I don't think people here are ready for that.

I would focus on the audible range first.

 

[VNandor]

I can hear the differences between 44.1k/16 vs its 768/32 upsampled version (with HQPlayer).

No way...