[Quazar]

Gregorio!
I admire your patience!

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Perfect, well done indeed. Backing up made-up, false assertions with made-up false assertions. What a brilliant example of critical thought! Even Monty Python would have struggled to come up with anything so absurd. lol

G

The only absurd thing is you claiming to know what everybody in the world hears.

 

[gregorio]

The only absurd thing is you claiming to know what everybody in the world hears.

As I do not claim “to know what everybody in the world hears”, the only absurdity is you falsely stating that I do. Even more absurd is the fact we’ve been through this before and just repeating a false statement doesn’t magically make it true, unless of course you believe in magic, which wouldn’t be absurd at all!

And again, you really are good at this, have you ever thought of doing some auditions? Eg. At a standup comedy venue, for a pantomime or maybe at an asylum? lol

G

 

[71 dB]

"You don't even manage to disprove Monty's point about staircases not existing" <=== I thought I managed to disprove Monty's point about staircases not existing. It is shown in the following graph:


(source: How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio)

Anyone can easily reproduce a similar stair-step audio ouput waveform from a modern DAC with NOS filter.

i.e. feed a perfect 1kHz sine wave digital input to a Topping E30 with filter F-5

Well... to be exact, it was not me who disprove the claim. It was the experiment done by the writer of the original article did that.

That can't be from the output of a DAC. It must be from an internal signal point of a DAC before reconstruction filtering. Nobody claims such signal doesn't have staircases (of course it does, because it isn't properly bandlimited!), but that's not the output of a proper DAC. The next picture in the linked source is the real output of a DAC.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

And again, you really are good at this, have you ever thought of doing some auditions? Eg. At a standup comedy venue,

Nah, I could never keep up with the hilarity of your nonsense, Mr. "piano isn't a complex instrument harmonically" man.

 

[gregorio]

Nah, I could never keep up with the hilarity of your nonsense.

You can’t even keep up with what I actually state. Presumably that’s why you have to invent absurd falsehoods that I have not stated. So maybe the last establishment I suggested would be more appropriate to audition?

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

we know what is inaudible and ...“what they should not hear”, unless of course they are not human!

also

As I do not claim “to know what everybody in the world hears”

Literally the guy makes a patently absurd claim, and claims he didn't make it 5 posts or whatever later on the same thread.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.

 

[71 dB]

I do know that sometimes it is hard to accept facts especially if these facts are not "compatibile" with one's own belief. Time would make this better. Cheers

It is hard to change the facts since they are facts (2+2 doesn't become equal to 5 just because your beliefs say so), but luckily people can change their beliefs to be more "compatible" with the facts.

 

[castleofargh]

That can't be from the output of a DAC. It must be from an internal signal point of a DAC before reconstruction filtering. Nobody claims such signal doesn't have staircases (of course it does, because it isn't properly bandlimited!), but that's not the output of a proper DAC. The next picture in the linked source is the real output of a DAC.

It seems to be a real thing on some AKM chips. It achieves nearly no phase shift at all by using the extremely innovative approach of filtering almost nothing at all ^_^. It's one out of 6 settings on that particular chip, and of course it is by far the worst possible setting for fidelity. But the impulse doesn't ring, therefore hires is great. Or something. If at any point anybody figures out the logic or relation between that and hires in OP's blog, please enlighten me.

 

[sunjam]

That can't be from the output of a DAC. It must be from an internal signal point of a DAC before reconstruction filtering. Nobody claims such signal doesn't have staircases (of course it does, because it isn't properly bandlimited!), but that's not the output of a proper DAC. The next picture in the linked source is the real output of a DAC.

Did you read the source of the picture? How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio

Please have a look of the source for more details..

 

[sunjam]

If at any point anybody figures out the logic or relation between that and hires in OP's blog, please enlighten me.

Looks to me @theveterans had already figured out the logic..

Case one: on NOS filter, you won't be able to hear the ultrasonics but definitely much better IMD and THD performance with oversampling since now the aliasing is pushed far, far away from passband, impulse still the same (depends on jitter performance as well in addition). FR should be flatter and almost indistinguishable to FIR filter applied to 44.1 KHz input and no way in hell to pass DBT ABX test with confidence.
Case two: impulse response of F1 (linear phase sharp roll-off) will result pre and post ringing, and again pre and post ringing are debatable (see GoldenSound passing ABX with different DAC filter), but in 99.9% of cases, indistinguishable to NOS with 1536KHz sampling

You're telling me though that the case for Hi-Res is valid ONLY if you're using NOS filter and oversampling outside of DAC such as HQPlayer. NOS on a 44.1 KHz music is audibly different than OS using a decent headphones or speakers though if you want that answer as well, however, as you age, you lose that ability to hear the higher frequencies as well

Just to add: competent DACs oversample by default though. NOS on 44.1 KHz is a fun sound and can tame those bright 80's music especially recordings from "The Cure" or Billy Idol

The following are the case one and case two @theveterans referred to.

Cool, thanks a lot for the reply. I agreed that there is no perfect digital filter.

Food for thought:

What if we try to push the Nyquist frequency to 768kHz (using 1536kHz sampling)?

i.e.
case one: 1536k Hz digitized input of an analog audio input signal, play back with E30, NOS filter
case two: 44.1k Hz digitized input of the same analog audio input signal , play back with E30 and the filter you considered as the best amongst all 6 filters available

For the audio signal output, which output would be closer to the original analog audio input?

 

[gregorio]

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.

As you just did make that up, how is it “honestly”? Do you really not comprehend the difference between what is inaudible and therefore the claim “of what people should not hear” and the claim of “knowing what everyone in the world hears”? Really, is it even possible to have such poor comprehension?

Good luck with your audition and let me know how it goes (if they allow you access to the internet)!

G

 

[sunjam]

Yes it is, now please show us where he discusses it! Monty only mentions a DIFFERENT video where he does discuss hi-res but he does not discuss it in the video you posted or in the transcript of the opening!

The following screen capture is from the Monty's video.

BTW, thanks for your reminder. I'd updated my blog with the following screen capture to avoid confusion. Cheers!

 

[gregorio]

Looks to me @theveterans had already figured out the logic..

No, that’s actually the logic of doing the opposite of what you claim (just for a change)! Because:

The following are the case one and case two @theveterans referred to.
case one: 1536k Hz digitized input of an analog audio input signal, play back with E30, NOS filter
case two: 44.1k Hz digitized input of the same analog audio input signal , play back with E30 and the filter you considered as the best amongst all 6 filters available
For the audio signal output, which output would be closer to the original analog audio input?

Answer: Probably “case two” (although there are other factors/conditions you have not specified), because it would not have images above the Nyquist point which could cause audible distortion. Even if there were no audible distortion caused by case one, and therefore case one and case two were audibly identical, still case one would make no logical sense because it would take more time, effort and money for an audibly identical result.

I'd updated my blog with the following screen capture to avoid confusion.

Adding a screenshot to a different video than the one you’re fallaciously debunking is certain to avoid confusion! lol. At least you’re consistent though! rofl

Honestly, we’ve got a double act here. Somehow: Fallacy + falsehood + incomprehension + ignorance = Logic (critical thinking). At least it’s entertaining because it’s so far off into cuckoo land! I wonder if one of them is being paid for this?

G

 

[sunjam]

Adding a screenshot from a different video to the one you’re fallaciously debunking is certain to avoid confusion! lol. At least you’re consistent though! rofl

You reply is very interesting. It prompted me to check if I am indeed living in the same world as you do and watch the same YouTube video as you watch.

I checked the reality and looks like we should live in the same world.

In that case, looks to me that you attempt to deny the fact that the screen capture is from the relevant video "(3462) D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube" (i.e. the "Monty's video"). You can reach that screen at 00:18 if you watch it from the very beginning.

Please let me know if you still cannot see it. I will check what else I can do to help. Cheers.