[sunjam]

its a claim that is a good generalization of things, but there are always some details left out

"on their audibility thresholds" these kind of claims hold but some should notice that there is clearly more going on then they claim, even if we could say the differences audiophiles talk about are miniscule but still make or break your system depending on how far off you go with how many improvements

Is the left out done with an intention to deliver other hidden message?
or Is the left out done due to a careless mistake?
or Is the left out done with an intention to avoid confusion with the general public?

I would say, if people know audio science well, they would know what details are left out.

For the people who don't know audio science well, they don't know what details are left out. They would simply trust the comment literally from a MIT expert wholeheartedly without any doubt. i..e "The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal"

Would that cause mis-understanding to the general public?

My view: it is not just causing mis-understanding to the general public, it is causing mis-understanding to some people who know audio science too.

 

[sunjam]

It seems I misunderstood an aspect of your assertion because I took parts of your blog at face value.

However I asked a question and never put words in your mouth in the slightest, come on, you are to clever for that !!

If you couldn’t understand what I was asking such that you could provide a straightforward response to straighten out the details your comprehension and communication skills are certainly not at the same level as your opinion of yourself.

Please don’t waste your time and more thread real estate with a reply because your opinion doesn’t matter to me and I certainly know mine doesn't matter to you.

Thanks for your reply. I hope you understand by now I don't want to argue with anyone here. To me, I truely, wholeheartedly believe the things I mentioned are correct.

Please note that, I didn't say I am correct. I said the things I mentioned are correct. It is a bit different.

As I said earlier, I enjoy the discussion with you. Free to to share your feedback as I want to learn from people who can highlight the things I cannot see. (I really love your picture of circles/lady, it looks cool)

Cheers

 

[gregorio]

I thought sound science is an authentic science subject like Physics, am I correct?

No you are not correct, no surprise there! Don’t you think it’s absurd to be arguing in a sound science forum when you don’t even seem to know what sound science is? That’s where your critical thinking has led you is it? To answer your question, sound science is authentic but it is NOT a subject like physics, it’s interdisciplinary. IE. It contains a considerable amount of classical physics but also other subjects such as psychoacoustics, computer science and various forms of engineering.

If, in sound science, we are just playing some DBT ABX tests for fun and then claim the result based on that without proper peer review system, it is like "correct but not absolutely".

1. That makes NO SENSE, it even makes no sense just in physics, let alone in the other disciplines. In physics there is the concept of significance/confidence, the “gold standard” is 5-Sigma, which is “correct but not absolutely” there is a 0.00002% probability that it is not correct. Wouldn’t someone trained in physics know that?
2. Even more non-sensical, some people are doing DBT/ABX for fun, others are doing it for scientific purposes and many are doing it for professional purposes. Even if it’s “for fun” then the result can indeed be claimed, it just has a lower level of significance/confidence than a professional or scientific (peer reviewed) result. This is in contrast to a sighted test without controls, which commonly has a significance/confidence level approaching zero!

Sorry, given my background, proper peer review is a must for any recogniized research result. People cannot simply do some DBT ABX tests at home or at his lab and claim the results.

You should indeed be sorry, as your claimed background does not appear to be your actual background! If it were, then you would know the above two points, namely that: People doing some DBT ABX tests at home or at his lab can indeed claim the results, they cannot claim them as “scientific research results” or as “recognised research results” however. I’m guessing you don’t know the difference here?

May I ask if there is any proper research paper (i.e. like the one we just saw from Nature) that claims "Hi-Res is useless" or something like "Hi-Res doesn't make sense" based on scientific research?

I am pretty sure there is none (please correct me if I am wrong).

You are wrong and we have already corrected you several times but still you repeat the same falsehoods. How many times are you going to try and play this ridiculous strawman game? Doing so is ENTIRELY INCOMPATIBLE with your claims of “given my background” in psychology and physics … It is entirely compatible with a background of being a troll or shill though!!
For the Nth time, Hi-res is not useless, we’ve been through all this more than once already, so of course there is no scientific research that proves it is, duh! However, there is proper research, for certain claims of Hi-res, for example: “Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications” - Lipshitz & Vanderkooy 2001 (AES) and various/numerous other papers indicating/demonstrating that hi-res is not audibly better as a playback format, the paper I cited previously for example, as well as the Meyer and Moran and numerous professional studies.

Silmilar, there is none to show "Hi-Res must sound better than CD for music playback".

That is FALSE! It is not even vaguely “Similar”, because there is much reliable evidence that Hi-res does not sound better (and I’ve cited just a few bits above) but none that it does or “must” sound better. If you actually had a scientific background as you claimed, then you would know that even if there were no reliable evidence at all against this claim (and it were therefore “Similar”), still this claim would not be accepted because “Burden of Proof”! How do you not know that?

If there was a conclusion that "Hi-Res is useless", no one would keep on doing research to compare Hi-Res vs CD

Stop with the strawman already! It is not useless but it is inaudible as a distribution playback format and in that regard your statement is indeed the case, almost no one does research into this anymore. There is just some rare, occasional research in this area due to the fact of ongoing claims within the audiophile industry and that science cannot absolutely prove a negative.

Sorry for my ignorance, I thought audio science forum is to promote factual knowledge in audio science instead of any claim like "Hi-Res is useless" or "You must hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD"

You absolutely should be “Sorry for your ignorance” as you keep using ignorance to justify your false claims but unfortunately you are not sorry because you keep doing it. Again, audio science does not claim hi-res is useless and it certainly does not claim “You must hear the difference”, in fact quite the opposite, enough with the strawman arguments!!

We should provide / share / exchange knowledge. Am I correct?

How can you possibly be correct when what you are actually providing/sharing is fallacies, falsehoods and pseudoscience?

One more question, why the "hi-res is useless" supporters hate other people saying that they can hear the difference? What's wrong? Why these supporters have to, like a brainwash, tell other that "you should not hear the difference"? I really don't get it why.

If we take your repeated strawman “hi-res is useless” argument as “hi-res is useless as a consumer distribution format” then how do you not know the answer to that question if you do actually have the training in science you claim? The answer is: Because of the facts/science and the burden of proof. Why do the brainwashed claim they can “hear the difference” when under controlled conditions they can’t and why is the only response to “burden of proof” strawman and other fallacies, pseudoscience, falsehoods and outright lies?

You make me think and learn.

Clearly that is false, unless you mean it makes you think of and learn more fallacious arguments and lies?

To check if a claim is valid or not, finding a single counter example is good enough.
e.g. let me use the exact words from the Monty's video: "you certainly don't get a stair-step when you convert from digital back to analog" the claim
The stair-step graph I showed earlier show the above claim is not valid.

This is the falsehood you started with, the falsehood upon which your entire argument rests and the falsehood you keep repeating over and over despite it being explained to you! The stair-step graph you showed earlier DOES NOT show Monty’s claim is incorrect! Monty’s claim is “no stair-step when you convert digital (audio) back to analog (audio)” it was NOT “no stair-step when you convert INVALID digital audio to analog audio”, which is what your graph shows! Actual (valid) digital audio requires band limiting as stipulated by Nyquist-Shannon. So of course a graph based on a broken design does not invalidate Monty’s video or the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem!

And in response to your other nonsense; it is obviously is not possible for Monty or anyone else to list every broken or nonsense condition under which Sampling Theory may not be valid and a DAC wouldn’t produce a smooth (continuously varying) output, in fact it would be stupid to try! For example, it may not be valid if you don’t switch the DAC on, if the DAC has been run-over by a tank, if it’s underwater and not waterproof, if you cook it in a microwave oven, if it’s inside a black hole, if it’s on a neutron star, if it’s in a different universe, if it’s operated by a unicorn, etc.! How do you not recognise your assertion as nonsense, “given your background” and rational/critical thinking?

1. absolutely perfect filter is required
2. To my understanding, quantization noise would introduce noise to the final audio output. The "smooth" output is not as sharp as the original signal. It was smeared to a thicker line by dithering to make it looks smooth. <=== please correct me if I am wrong.

1. That is false, as already explained!
2. I will correct you, not that it will make any difference, the key point in your assertion is “to my understanding” but what understanding? Your understanding is wrong and you admit you’re ignorant. You’ve just made-up what looks like a fake hand drawing and falsely stated that is what happens! You’re joking right? Contrary to your assertion, the “smooth” output is as sharp as the original but it potentially also has some quantisation noise. I say “potentially” because of the refutation of your false assertion I already provided which you ignored/deflected! Namely, that the result of 90dBSPL - 120dB is non-existent!

By the way, I am curious... Is the Monty's video considered as the "bible" in the audio science world?

No, it’s just considered to be a good explanation and practical demonstration of the bible (Sampling Theory).

I would say, if people know audio science well, they would know what details are left out.
For the people who don't know audio science well, they don't know what details are left out. They would simply trust the comment literally from a MIT expert wholeheartedly without any doubt.

Exactly, you would say that but someone employing critical thinking would not! Someone employing critical thinking would first verify if in fact any details have been left out and if so, if those details are valid and relevant. So, well done contradicting your own claims of critical thinking and proving you’re NOT employing any!! Do you even have any reliable evidence of left out relevant details?
Also, no one here (to my knowledge) is “simply trusting the MIT expert wholeheartedly without any doubt”, we’re trusting the actual facts/science, which do not contradict Monty’s video!

So just more of the same; claims of a scientific background and critical thinking but presenting only falsehoods, fake images, fallacies and disingenuous apologies for being ignorant! How much are you being paid for this?

G

 

[Ryokan]

the “gold standard” is 5-Sigma, which is “correct but not absolutely” there is a 0.00002% probability that it is not correct. Wouldn’t someone trained in physics know that?


G

Isn't that so small that even in mathematics that would be dismissed and taken as zero? If it was 0.02 even that probability could be taken as zero?

 

[gregorio]

Isn't that so small that even in mathematics that would be dismissed and taken as zero?

In most cases yes but sunjam keeps going on about “absolutely” correct/perfect, only exactly 0% probability of being wrong is absolutely perfect and therefore he cannot accept 0.00002% as effectively correct/perfect in practice, IE. “Perfect but not absolutely perfect”. Unfortunately, he also claims to be trained in physics, which does consider 5-Sigma (0.00002% probability) to be correct, so unless he disagrees with physics (or invalidating his training in physics) he’s contradicted himself!

This has been a typical audiophile marketing ploy for nearly half a century: Something (jitter, an amp’s or DAC’s output, audio cables, mains power, fuses, or whatever) isn’t “absolutely perfect” but we have an audiophile product that will get you absolutely perfect or at least closer to it. Not uncommonly that’s just an outright lie and sometimes there’s an element of truth but it deliberately ignores what is downstream, EG. The physical limitations of acoustic sound itself and the limitations of transducers (microphones, speakers, HPs and human ears), either way, it’s snake oil! So, snake oil marketers would therefore typically need to fight the idea of “perfect but not absolutely perfect”, so it’s rather telling that’s exactly what sunjam has been doing for so many pages!

G

 

[castleofargh]

@theveterans. sunjam is trying to fool you with a little flattery and a game of replacing dialectic by kindergarten rhetoric, misquoting, strawmaning, cherry-picking, and just a general lack of logical continuity in his make-believe demonstrations.
Sure, he's not insulting in form, but the content is ultimately no more than manipulation and lies taking us all for idiots. Which to a few of us is much more of a problem than pretending to play nice for decorum.

Remember it started with his grand battle against pseudo-science and against Monty who claimed "hires is useless", except he didn't, the video attacked wasn't at all about hires, it was just showing that there were no staircases in a reasonably filtered signal out of a cheap DAC. Only @sunjam confused the 2 matters(for effect?), and determined what Monty was claiming or not, with the power of critical thinking making crap up.
Plus, the actual battle was about what Monty wrote before, which was explicitly about his opinion that streaming at 24/192 was a bad idea.
The entire time, Monty discusses a band limited signal with a filter to remove as much of the out-of-band crap on reconstruction(which should be intuitive enough, as the out-of-band signal was not sampled in the band limited signal... duh... and as such was not part of the recorded audio). It's what common sense and math tells us to do if we want fidelity, and doing it will not have staircases! End of discussion.

Sunjam keeps ignoring anything he doesn't like, including me explaining the band limiting thing that blows up his article, just to stay in the fight of his own making, to put a target on Monthy by quoting him saying something he did not say or write, by taking an example of a clearly out of conditions output(I mean the freaking thing isn't even NOS, it's a delta sigma simulating something of a NOS with a filter that should really be called an imaging filter given how little it really does.

The original article(not sunjam's!!!) wrote this to explain that special F5 filter(after saying that all the others resulted in a clean looking sine):

This is kind of a reversion to the earliest Sony-style resistor ladder digital-to-analogue conversion I described earlier. But not a full reversion … because the output filter has been omitted. That’s why you see that jagged step-pattern in the 1kHz sine wave.

Do you think he did not see that when reading the original article? Clear, available, and already known information is being ignored by him so he gets to play hero of debunking a fallacy of his making.


Take this same trick in his recent posts:

For the people who don't know audio science well, they don't know what details are left out. They would simply trust the comment literally from a MIT expert wholeheartedly without any doubt. i..e "The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal"

Would that cause mis-understanding to the general public?

My view: it is not just causing mis-understanding to the general public, it is causing mis-understanding to some people who know audio science too.

Monty(that he called MIT expert....) wrote:

All signals with content entirely below the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are captured perfectly and completely by sampling; an infinite sampling rate is not required. Sampling doesn't affect frequency response or phase. The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal.


So the math is ideal, but what of real world complications? The most notorious is the band-limiting requirement. Signals with content over the Nyquist frequency must be lowpassed before sampling to avoid aliasing distortion; this analog lowpass is the infamous antialiasing filter. Antialiasing can't be ideal in practice, but modern techniques bring it very close. ...and with that we come to oversampling.

For once the quote is real, I guess I should consider this, progress... but see how our critical thinker in chief cherry-picks something out of context again and, with clear dishonesty, act as if the following was never addressed?
It's manipulation, plain and simple. Forget how you might agree with him on a benefit for hires, a choice of filtering, or NOS, or whatever bone he throws at us from time to time to divert attention out of what clearly shows his wrongdoings. Forget any feeling of affinity you might get from that, and look at the facts of what he's doing.

Here is the output spectrum while playing Money for Nothing at 44.1kHz with the F5 filter(still same source I linked in the first page of the thread):

Everything after the first strong attenuation, somewhere near 21kHz, is signal that did not exist on the album. The weird bird on a stick pattern is the spectrum of the song, but mirrored and repeated a bunch of times. Why would sunjam or anybody bring this (or filterless NOS)as the right way to reconstruct a 44.1kHz signal? Yet he kept on alluding to that. Bringing back filterless NOS DAC as the model of interest for but one reason, feed his fake narrative and say that "many" DACs do NOS(but how many actually do filterless NOS?). And again, his examples aren't even from a NOS DACs, they're one weird filter on a Topping E30 when the original article did show similar graphs from an actual filterless NOS DAC. But I guess the fake BS looked better for effect, that's again the type of super honest critical thinking, not at all manipulative way he does things.



Look again at his article and posts, most of it is like that. His own posts don't stand a chance against actual scrutiny, fact checking, and critical thinking. 25 pages of long confused stories about the pot calling the kettle black.
All that for what? His blog. With an article that relies on one single concept(if you find another, as I already asked, please share it with me): that if Monty was wrong about staircaises(he wasn't) then he must be wrong about everything else, including the "hires is useless" claim sunjam made up. Our expert at thinking didn't seem to have a better plan than a "once wrong, always wrong" fallacy.

He just relishes pointless little rhetorical battles he can win with tricks. I guess someone who didn't learn much about philosophy might think that's what philosophy is about.

 

[sunjam]

No you are not correct, no surprise there! Don’t you think it’s absurd to be arguing in a sound science forum when you don’t even seem to know what sound science is? That’s where your critical thinking has led you is it? To answer your question, sound science is authentic but it is NOT a subject like physics, it’s interdisciplinary. IE. It contains a considerable amount of classical physics but also other subjects such as psychoacoustics, computer science and various forms of engineering.

1. That makes NO SENSE, it even makes no sense just in physics, let alone in the other disciplines. In physics there is the concept of significance/confidence, the “gold standard” is 5-Sigma, which is “correct but not absolutely” there is a 0.00002% probability that it is not correct. Wouldn’t someone trained in physics know that?
2. Even more non-sensical, some people are doing DBT/ABX for fun, others are doing it for scientific purposes and many are doing it for professional purposes. Even if it’s “for fun” then the result can indeed be claimed, it just has a lower level of significance/confidence than a professional or scientific (peer reviewed) result. This is in contrast to a sighted test without controls, which commonly has a significance/confidence level approaching zero!

You should indeed be sorry, as your claimed background does not appear to be your actual background! If it were, then you would know the above two points, namely that: People doing some DBT ABX tests at home or at his lab can indeed claim the results, they cannot claim them as “scientific research results” or as “recognised research results” however. I’m guessing you don’t know the difference here?

You are wrong and we have already corrected you several times but still you repeat the same falsehoods. How many times are you going to try and play this ridiculous strawman game? Doing so is ENTIRELY INCOMPATIBLE with your claims of “given my background” in psychology and physics … It is entirely compatible with a background of being a troll or shill though!!
For the Nth time, Hi-res is not useless, we’ve been through all this more than once already, so of course there is no scientific research that proves it is, duh! However, there is proper research, for certain claims of Hi-res, for example: “Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications” - Lipshitz & Vanderkooy 2001 (AES) and various/numerous other papers indicating/demonstrating that hi-res is not audibly better as a playback format, the paper I cited previously for example, as well as the Meyer and Moran and numerous professional studies.

That is FALSE! It is not even vaguely “Similar”, because there is much reliable evidence that Hi-res does not sound better (and I’ve cited just a few bits above) but none that it does or “must” sound better. If you actually had a scientific background as you claimed, then you would know that even if there were no reliable evidence against this claim at all and it were therefore “Similar”, still this claim would not be accepted because “Burden of Proof”! How do you not know that?

Stop with the strawman already! It is not useless but it is inaudible as a distribution playback format and in that regard your statement is indeed the case, almost no one does research into this anymore. There is just some rare, occasional research in this area due to the fact of ongoing claims within the audiophile industry and that science cannot absolutely prove a negative.

You absolutely should be “Sorry for your ignorance” as you keep using ignorance to justify your false claims but unfortunately you are not sorry because you keep doing it. Again, audio science does not claim hi-res is useless and it certainly does not claim “You must hear the difference”, in fact quite the opposite, enough with the strawman arguments!!

How can you possibly be correct when what you are actually providing/sharing is fallacies, falsehoods and pseudoscience?

If we take your repeated strawman “hi-res is useless” argument as “hi-res is useless as a consumer distribution format” then how do you not know the answer to that question if you do actually have the training in science you claim? The answer is: Because of the facts/science and the burden of proof. Why do the brainwashed claim they can “hear the difference” when under controlled conditions they can’t and why is the only response to “burden of proof” strawman and other fallacies, pseudoscience, falsehoods and outright lies?

Clearly that is false, unless you mean it makes you think of and learn more fallacious arguments and lies?

This is the falsehood you started with, the falsehood upon which your entire argument rests and the falsehood you keep repeating over and over despite it being explained to you! The stair-step graph you showed earlier DOES NOT show Monty’s claim is incorrect! Monty’s claim is “no stair-step when you convert digital (audio) back to analog (audio)” it was NOT “no stair-step when you convert INVALID digital audio to analog audio”, which is what your graph shows! Actual (valid) digital audio requires band limiting as stipulated by Nyquist-Shannon. So of course a graph based on a broken design does not invalidate Monty’s video or the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem!

And in response to your other nonsense; it is obviously is not possible for Monty or anyone else to list every broken or nonsense condition under which Sampling Theory may not be valid and a DAC wouldn’t produce a smooth (continuously varying) output, in fact it would be stupid to try! For example, it may not be valid if you don’t switch the DAC on, if the DAC has been run-over by a tank, if it’s underwater and not waterproof, if you cook it in a microwave oven, if it’s inside a black hole, if it’s on a neutron star, if it’s in a different universe, if it’s operated by a unicorn, etc.! How do you not recognise your assertion as nonsense, “given your background” and rational/critical thinking?

1. That is false, as already explained!
2. I will correct you, not that it will make any difference, the key point in your assertion is “to my understanding” which is incorrect. You’ve just made-up what looks like a fake hand drawing and falsely stated that is what happens! You’re joking right? Contrary to your assertion, the “smooth” output is as sharp as the original but it potentially also has some quantisation noise. I say “potentially” because of the refutation of your false assertion I already provided which you ignored/deflected! Namely, that the result of 90dBSPL - 120dB is non-existent!

No, it’s just considered to be a good explanation and practical demonstration of the bible (Sampling Theory).

Exactly, you would say that but someone employing critical thinking would not! Someone employing critical thinking would first verify if in fact any details have been left out and if so, if those details are valid and relevant. So, well done contradicting your own claims of critical thinking and proving you’re NOT employing any!! Do you even have any reliable evidence of left out relevant details?
Also, no one here (to my knowledge) is “simply trusting the MIT expert wholeheartedly without any doubt”, we’re trusting the actual facts/science, which do not contradict Monty’s video!

So just more of the same; claims of a scientific background and critical thinking but presenting only falsehoods, fake images, fallacies and disingenuous apologies for being ignorant! How much are you being paid for this?

G

Physics, Psychology, Computer Science, Perfect!

"sound science is authentic but it is NOT a subject like physics, it’s interdisciplinary. IE. It contains a considerable amount of classical physics but also other subjects such as psychoacoustics, computer science and various forms of engineering." <=== With my backgrounds, no wonder why people cannot BS me easily. Thanks for your confirmation. They really need to try harder if they want to be successful in the BS.

Not "recognised research results"

"People doing some DBT ABX tests at home or at his lab can indeed claim the results, they cannot claim them as “scientific research results” or as “recognised research results” however." <=== Do you mean those claims are not "recognised research results"? In that case, does it mean those claims are "valid but not absolutely"?

If those claim are indeed valid, why don't they submit their results to a journal for peer reivew? What they are afraid of? What's missing in their experiments in order to be considered as "scientific research results" or "recognized research results"?

Let me repeat, Hi-Res is not useless!!!

"For the Nth time, Hi-res is not useless, we’ve been through all this more than once already" <=== Thanks for your confirmation "Hi-res is not useless
"Again, audio science does not claim hi-res is useless" <=== Thanks for your confirmation again that "Hi-res is not useless". You stated it pretty clearly now and we all can see it clearly now too. Thanks.

1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion

"However, there is proper research, for certain claims of Hi-res, for example: 'Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications' - Lipshitz & Vanderkooy 2001 (AES) and various/numerous other papers indicating/demonstrating that hi-res is not audibly better as a playback format, the paper I cited previously for example, as well as the Meyer and Moran and numerous professional studies." <=== I have a quick look of the paper. I didn't see it said "hi-res is not audibly better as a playback format". If you do see it, could you please point it out to me? Thanks.

Who is willing to pay me? Please let me know if you know of anyone

"How much are you being paid for this?" <=== I don't mind to get paid if someone is willing to pay me for sharing knowledge on the internet. Unfortunately, there is none. Please let me know if you do know of anyone who is willing to pay me. PM me is good too. Thanks.

 

[Ryokan]

"For the Nth time, Hi-res is not useless, we’ve been through all this more than once already" <=== Thanks for your confirmation "Hi-res is not useless
"Again, audio science does not claim hi-res is useless" <=== Thanks for your confirmation again that "Hi-res is not useless". You stated it pretty clearly now and we all can see it clearly now too. Thanks.

Just for listening to.

 

[sunjam]

@theveterans. sunjam is trying to fool you with a little flattery and a game of replacing dialectic by kindergarten rhetoric, misquoting, strawmaning, cherry-picking, and just a general lack of logical continuity in his make-believe demonstrations.
Sure, he's not insulting in form, but the content is ultimately no more than manipulation and lies taking us all for idiots. Which to a few of us is much more of a problem than pretending to play nice for decorum.

Remember it started with his grand battle against pseudo-science and against Monty who claimed "hires is useless", except he didn't, the video attacked wasn't at all about hires, it was just showing that there were no staircases in a reasonably filtered signal out of a cheap DAC. Only @sunjam confused the 2 matters(for effect?), and determined what Monty was claiming or not, with the power of critical thinking making crap up.
Plus, the actual battle was about what Monty wrote before, which was explicitly about his opinion that streaming at 24/192 was a bad idea.
The entire time, Monty discusses a band limited signal with a filter to remove as much of the out-of-band crap on reconstruction(which should be intuitive enough, as the out-of-band signal was not sampled in the band limited signal... duh... and as such was not part of the recorded audio). It's what common sense and math tells us to do if we want fidelity, and doing it will not have staircases! End of discussion.

Sunjam keeps ignoring anything he doesn't like, including me explaining the band limiting thing that blows up his article, just to stay in the fight of his own making, to put a target on Monthy by quoting him saying something he did not say or write, by taking an example of a clearly out of conditions output(I mean the freaking thing isn't even NOS, it's a delta sigma simulating something of a NOS with a filter that should really be called an imaging filter given how little it really does.

The original article(not sunjam's!!!) wrote this to explain that special F5 filter(after saying that all the others resulted in a clean looking sine):

Do you think he did not see that when reading the original article? Clear, available, and already known information is being ignored by him so he gets to play hero of debunking a fallacy of his making.


Take this same trick in his recent posts:


Monty(that he called MIT expert....) wrote:

For once the quote is real, I guess I should consider this, progress... but see how our critical thinker in chief cherry-picks something out of context again and, with clear dishonesty, act as if the following was never addressed?
It's manipulation, plain and simple. Forget how you might agree with him on a benefit for hires, a choice of filtering, or NOS, or whatever bone he throws at us from time to time to divert attention out of what clearly shows his wrongdoings. Forget any feeling of affinity you might get from that, and look at the facts of what he's doing.

Here is the output spectrum while playing Money for Nothing at 44.1kHz with the F5 filter(still same source I linked in the first page of the thread):

Everything after the first strong attenuation, somewhere near 21kHz, is signal that did not exist on the album. The weird bird on a stick pattern is the spectrum of the song, but mirrored and repeated a bunch of times. Why would sunjam or anybody bring this (or filterless NOS)as the right way to reconstruct a 44.1kHz signal? Yet he kept on alluding to that. Bringing back filterless NOS DAC as the model of interest for but one reason, feed his fake narrative and say that "many" DACs do NOS(but how many actually do filterless NOS?). And again, his examples aren't even from a NOS DACs, they're one weird filter on a Topping E30 when the original article did show similar graphs from an actual filterless NOS DAC. But I guess the fake BS looked better for effect, that's again the type of super honest critical thinking, not at all manipulative way he does things.



Look again at his article and posts, most of it is like that. His own posts don't stand a chance against actual scrutiny, fact checking, and critical thinking. 25 pages of long confused stories about the pot calling the kettle black.
All that for what? His blog. With an article that relies on one single concept(if you find another, as I already asked, please share it with me): that if Monty was wrong about staircaises(he wasn't) then he must be wrong about everything else, including the "hires is useless" claim sunjam made up. Our expert at thinking didn't seem to have a better plan than a "once wrong, always wrong" fallacy.

He just relishes pointless little rhetorical battles he can win with tricks. I guess someone who didn't learn much about philosophy might think that's what philosophy is about.

Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned earlier, I really love to see your reply.

"Hi-Res is useless"? Or not?

"Remember it started with his grand battle against pseudo-science and against Monty who claimed 'hires is useless', except he didn't, the video attacked wasn't at all about hires, it was just showing that there were no staircases in a reasonably filtered signal out of a cheap DAC." <=== Are you wholeheartedly, truely belief that the video wasn't at all about Hi-Res?

If that's the case, why he showed the following on the video? His opening speech explained in details how his video is related to "24/192 Music Downloads Are Very Silly Indeed" and he showed clearly the link to the related articles he wrote. It would be my mistake if he indeed believe "Hi-Res is not useless".

Do you truely believe that he would agree Hi-Res is not useless by showing the below on the video that we are talking about?

Hi-Res is not useless. Just the streaming is a bid idea?

"Plus, the actual battle was about what Monty wrote before, which was explicitly about his opinion that streaming at 24/192 was a bad idea." <=== From the article he provided on the video (via the link shown), the article explicitly said "192kHz music files make no sense"

Do you truely believe that he would agree 24/192 is a good idea for playing music (but just not good for streaming?) It looks to me that you attempt to put some words into his mouth in order to argue that he just meant streaming is bad idea.

Filterless or not filterless? That's the question....

"The original article(not sunjam's!!!) wrote this to explain that special F5 filter(after saying that all the others resulted in a clean looking sine)" <== Yes, the original article mentioned "This is kind of a reversion to the earliest Sony-style resistor ladder digital-to-analogue conversion I described earlier. But not a full reversion … because the output filter has been omitted. That’s why you see that jagged step-pattern in the 1kHz sine wave."

That is the thing I don't agree with him because Topping E30 does have final analog filter output stage (please correct me if I am wrong).

Do you think I want to hide something or mis-represent something here? I provided the link to the original article and I ASKED ALL OF YOU TO READ IT WORD BY WORD. If you insist that I want to hide something or whatever, all I can say is that it is your own judgement based on your "logical" thinking skill.

Illusion? Topping E30 cannot show stair-step output?

"his examples aren't even from a NOS DACs, they're one weird filter on a Topping E30 when the original article did show similar graphs from an actual filterless NOS DAC" <=== That's not a weird filter. It is a properly built, well-desgined NOS emulation filter on a modern DAC, Topping E30, with AKM 4493 chip.

Are you saying the following graph on the original article is not from Topping E30 with NOS filter? I suggest you to re-read the original article word by word again as the following is the final audio signal output from Topping E30 with NOS filter for a perfect sine wave digital input.

Did I say NOS filter is good for 44.1kHz?

"Here is the output spectrum while playing Money for Nothing at 44.1kHz with the F5 filter" <=== Oh... why you play 44.1kHz with the F5 filter? Did I say F5 filter is good for 44.1kHz? Where? I don't think I did. It is in your mind only. I said F5 filter is for Hi-Res (e.g. 768k/32)

Filterless NOS? Who said that? (examples of "putting words" into my mouth):

1. "Bringing back filterless NOS DAC as the model of interest for but one reason, feed his fake narrative and say that "many" DACs do NOS(but how many actually do filterless NOS?) <== Did I say filterless NOS? Where? I don't think I did. It is only in your mind out of your illusion. I mentioned NOS mode (aka NOS filter)

2. "if Monty was wrong about staircaises(he wasn't) then he must be wrong about everything else" <=== Did I say it? Where? I don't think I did. It is only in your mind out of your illusion.

Thanks again for your reply.

Cheers (DSD256 is really good music to my ears)

 

[sunjam]

Sorry, I missed one (as there are too many...)

Let's look at the below quote (the one from Monty's):

In Monty's quote, he said very clearly before sampling.

Isn't it part of the ADC process?

I think DAC does not do any sampling. Am I correct? Is it possible that you mess up ADC with DAC?

If you look at the quoted message clearly, i.e. word by word. He didn't say anything related to filtering on DAC. Did I miss anything here? Please let me know if I do.

Who's playing trick? Me? or someone else?

Cheers!

p.s.: please point out to me if I forget to address anything you mentioned. If you didn't point it out, I would assume there is none.

 

[gregorio]

Thanks for your confirmation.

No, thanks for yours, a perfect case of cherrypicking, confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking, unless of course you’re just lying?

What's missing in their experiments in order to be considered as "scientific research results" or "recognized research results"?

Thanks again, so you don’t know the difference.

Thanks for your confirmation again that "Hi-res is not useless". You stated it pretty clearly now and we all can see it clearly now too. Thanks.

That’s a bit late, I stated the uses for hi-res right back near the beginning and now you’re thanking me?

"Remember it started with his grand battle against pseudo-science and against Monty who claimed 'hires is useless', except he didn't, the video attacked wasn't at all about hires, it was just showing that there were no staircases in a reasonably filtered signal out of a cheap DAC." <=== Are you wholeheartedly, truely belief that the video wasn't at all about Hi-Res?

If that's the case, why he showed the following on the video?

Asked and answered but don’t let that get in the way of BS!

That is the thing I don't agree with him because Topping E30 does have final analog filter output stage (please correct me if I am wrong).

You are wrong, you are still wrong, you have been corrected and you just carry on posting the same wrong BS. DO you really not have the intelligence to understand what “emulating a filterless design” means or are you lying?

Do you think I want to hide something or mis-represent something here?

Hahahaha! Is the pope catholic, is the earth spherical? You’re a funny guy!

So, yet again you can’t answer any of the questions, accusations or refutations put to you and your word salad response only confirms them. So thank you!

G

 

[gregorio]

Just noticed these beauties!

I didn't see it said "hi-res is not audibly better as a playback format".

That’s because it didn’t, it just proved that 1bit DSD is not suitable for high quality audio applications. You know, the format you think is great but isn’t! That’s funny.

In Monty's quote, he said very clearly before sampling.
Isn't it part of the ADC process?
I think DAC does not do any sampling. Am I correct? Is it possible that you mess up ADC with DAC?
If you look at the quoted message clearly, i.e. word by word. He didn't say anything related to filtering on DAC. Did I miss anything here? Please let me know if I do.

Who's playing trick? Me? or someone else?

Obviously it’s You “playing trick”! The ADC process requires a properly functioning anti-alias filter, a DAC does not, a DAC requires a properly functioning anti-image/reconstruction filter, as has been explained to you numerous times but you simply play stupid word salad in response. So you couldn’t hardly make it more clear that it’s YOU!

G

 

[sunjam]

No, thanks for yours, a perfect case of cherrypicking, confirmation bias and lack of critical thinking, unless of course you’re just lying?

Thanks again, so you don’t know the difference.

That’s a bit late, I stated the uses for hi-res right back near the beginning and now you’re thanking me?

Asked and answered but don’t let that get in the way of BS!

You are wrong, you are still wrong, you have been corrected and you just carry on posting the same wrong BS. DO you really not have the intelligence to understand what “emulating a filterless design” means or are you lying?

Hahahaha! Is the pope catholic, is the earth spherical? You’re a funny guy!

So, yet again you can’t answer any of the questions, accusations or refutations put to you and your word salad response only confirms them. So thank you!

G

"are you lying?" <== No, I am not lying.

"Thanks again, so you don’t know the difference" <== I hope you don't mind to share your viewpoint with us.

"That’s a bit late, I stated the uses for hi-res right back near the beginning and now you’re thanking me?" <== Late is better than never arrive. Thanks again for your acknowledgement that "Hi-Res is not useless for music playback".

For this, it looks to me that more people now agree "Hi-Res is not useless for music playback". Cool. I am happy to see that.

- You agreed now.
- @castleofargh just indicated that Monty does not agree "Hi-Res is useless" (as @castleofargh said Monty's was just focusing on streaming).

====
"you can’t answer any of the question' <== I hope I answered all your questions. Please let me know if I overlook any.

Cheers.

 

[gregorio]

No, I am not lying.

But then you state this:

Thanks again for your acknowledgement that "Hi-Res is not useless for music playback".

Which is an obvious lie because I definitely did not acknowledge that, I acknowledged the opposite.

I don’t think you could have come-up with a more obvious proof that you are lying (unless you actually explicitly admitted it). So thank you for as good a confirmation as we’re likely to see! Well done.

G

 

[sunjam]

Oh.... I was tricked by your reply below.

From the above reply, I thought you agreed "Hi-res is not useless" now.

If that's not the case, I am sorry about it. As you indicated clearly now you "acknowledged the opposite", I would take it as you agreed "Hi-res is useless for music playback". I hope I am correct this time. (That's why I always ask people please correct me if I am wrong. thanks)

Sorry for being verbose as I want to ensure that everything is 100% correct. I don't want to be "correct but not absolutely".

Cheers.