[gregorio]

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.

I edited my post before you posted your response because of the typo, to:

Adding a screenshot to a different video than the one you’re fallaciously debunking is certain to avoid confusion! lol

But no, we don’t live in the same world. I live in a world where “avoiding pseudoscience” does not mean packing my posts with pseudoscience and “avoiding confusion” does not mean adding more confusion!

G

 

[sunjam]

Oh.... it seems that the original video was removed from the original web site 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed (xiph.org):

When you click on the link "Digital Show & Tell" on the official web site, you will get the following:

Did he find out something misleading in the video and remove it? Hmm...

The YouTube one was uploaded by someone else to the FL Studio's YouTube channel... Probably he needs to ask someone to remove it for him.

 

[bigshot]

This thread is dumb.

 

[sunjam]

This thread is dumb.

Yes and no...

Yes. If he remember to remove the video from the YouTube as well, probably we won't see it and we would not have this thread at all.

No. Even without his video, I bet some people would still get similar mis-leading ideas from someone else. In that case, probably we need to do something similar with someone else's mis-leading video.

BTW, I'd jjust updated my blog to show the fact that the video was indeed removed from the official website. Thanks all of you for joining the discussion otherwise, I may not notice that the video was indeed removed.

 

[gregorio]

Did he find out something misleading in the video and remove it? Hmm...

Did Santa Claus or the audiophile pixies delete it? Can pigs fly better than fighter jets? Is the earth flat? Hmm…

The YouTube one was uploaded by someone else to the FL Studio's YouTube channel... Probably he needs to ask someone to remove it for him.

Why?
Don’t bother answering any of these questions (not that you usually address the refutations put to you anyway).

Even without his video, I bet some people would still get similar mis-leading ideas from someone else. In that case, probably we need to do something similar with someone else's mis-leading video.

Please stop with the nonsense lies. There is no similar misleading videos, there’s only your misleading blog and your failed attempt here and apparently at ASR.

G

 

[danadam]

Did he find out something misleading in the video and remove it? Hmm...

I'm sure you're only asking /s
Here you have it:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

 

[castleofargh]

Thanks for your reply.

Here is the transcript in the first minute of "the Monty's video":

He said: "Hi I'm Monty Montgomery from Red Hat and Zephyr org, a few months ago I wrote an article on digital audio and why 24 bit 192 kilohertz music downloads don't make sense. In the article I mentioned almost in passing that a digital waveform is not a stair-step and you certainly don't get a stair-step when you convert from digital back to analog of everything and the entire article that was the number one thing people wrote about."

Based on my communication skill, my understanding of his saying of "24 bit 192 kilohertz music downloads don't make sense" mean "Hi-Res music doesn't make sense". Did I make a mistake here?

What your understanding of his saying of "24 bit 192 kilohertz music downloads don't make sense"? Does it mean "Hi-Res is useless" to you? Or you have a different interpretation of that statement?

I wish we have an open-minded, fact based discussion about Hi-Res music. Sometimes, I do feel it but sometimes I do not. To be honest, I feel someone was trying to bully me when I stated the supporting facts to support my view point.

Please make sure to let me know that if I stated something as facts but indeed they are not. I will fix them as I don't want to mis-lead people.

=================

"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.
=================

"Monty's video does not discuss hires, you managed to use the one that doesn't." <=== Please look at his opening speech again... "Hi I'm Monty Montgomery from Red Hat and Zephyr org, a few months ago I wrote an article on digital audio and why 24 bit 192 kilohertz music downloads don't make sense. In the article I mentioned almost in passing that a digital waveform is not a stair-step and you certainly don't get a stair-step when you convert from digital back to analog of everything and the entire article that was the number one thing people wrote about..."

Is 192/24 a Hi-Res format?

=================

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

You find this to be a proper explanation? How can you have so much tunnel vision and act like you're a critical thinker at the same time? I'm dumbfounded.

The facts:
-In the video's intro, Monty mentions an article he wrote. That is not the content of that video you referenced and pretend to argue against. Again, that video, just like the source for the oscilloscope screenshots, did not argue hires!

-He does not claim what you quote him claiming. In the actual article he disagreed with using that resolution, 24/192 for music streaming.
The article explains all the reasons why he has that opinion.

-He wrote that in 2012.



Meanwhile, you use measurement of a 32bit chip with an option simulating some bad parody of NOS nearly filterless DAC to output a garbage signal that tries to appeal to the historic AKM R2R chip followers. And you use that for some grandstanding operation(technically clickbait) about CD and hires.
I can't for the life of me understand how they're related, or how it demonstrates anything other than the possibility of doing things wrong on purpose, so long as some people will want it.
Your attempt to take Monty's meaning out of context is, IMO, pathetic. There, I said it. In a hobby where if you throw a rock anywhere, you hit five people who claimed BS about digital audio, you had to attack him with a BS argument.
He did not care to consider someone willingly leaving massive ultrasonic crap when he said you wouldn't get staircases on the analogue output. He deserves prison for sure.

I maintain what I said

You don't even manage to disprove Monty's point about staircases not existing. He clearly speaks about a band limited signal and your frankenstein cherry-picked misrepresentation case clearly does not manage to band limit the signal. We know it because if the signal was properly band limited, it could not show staircases!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bigshot]

He’s not going to stop. Thread bans are useful in cases like this. A short nap would slow down the train barreling towards the crash.

 

[BS5711]

Sunjam,

You seem to have overlooked my earlier question.

Your argument seems to be centred around the premise that you hear something different with hi res audio so you are digging deeper to understand why.

Is that correct ?

My question was how old are you ?

Additionally, do you have any other day to day examples of your hearing ability outside of audio that might help demonstrate that your hearing extends beyond scientific knowledge ?

I know you prefer the technical stuff but there are two parts involved in audio, what makes sound via a moving diaphragm and what happens when the sound waves hit our ears. Both sides are equally important but you don’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in explaining the second part and how your specific auditory experience forms the foundation of your interest and ultimately for your argument.

 

[danadam]

Then you have to pay a penalty in the impulse response of the FFT signal with lots of pre and post ripples that you provided using the F1 filter (linear phase sharp roll-off).

It's only a penalty if you think that the ripples are something wrong. I've never heard any convincing explanation why that would be. Most of the time it's just hand-waving and saying "look, this one is flat before and after the impulse so it must be better" and what I see is "look, the filter does literally nothing and doing nothing is the opposite of what I want from interpolating/reconstructing filter".

Case one: on NOS filter, you won't be able to hear the ultrasonics but definitely much better IMD and THD

When you play 1536k Hz digitized input of an analog audio input you risk that the file will contain some junk above 20 kHz and this may increase IMD. And usually the file will have some junk because otherwise audiophiles would cry foul that they only get upsampled files and not true hi-res

BTW, I've heard some guy wrote an article about that

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.

Oh no, but what about the "perfect" impulse response? You'll lose that if you oversample outside of DAC (assuming that there it is done with a proper filter).

 

[sunjam]

You find this to be a proper explanation? How can you have so much tunnel vision and act like you're a critical thinker at the same time? I'm dumbfounded.

The facts:
-In the video's intro, Monty mentions an article he wrote. That is not the content of that video you referenced and pretend to argue against. Again, that video, just like the source for the oscilloscope screenshots, did not argue hires!

-He does not claim what you quote him claiming. In the actual article he disagreed with using that resolution, 24/192 for music streaming.
The article explains all the reasons why he has that opinion.

-He wrote that in 2012.



Meanwhile, you use measurement of a 32bit chip with an option simulating some bad parody of NOS nearly filterless DAC to output a garbage signal that tries to appeal to the historic AKM R2R chip followers. And you use that for some grandstanding operation(technically clickbait) about CD and hires.
I can't for the life of me understand how they're related, or how it demonstrates anything other than the possibility of doing things wrong on purpose, so long as some people will want it.
Your attempt to take Monty's meaning out of context is, IMO, pathetic. There, I said it. In a hobby where if you throw a rock anywhere, you hit five people who claimed BS about digital audio, you had to attack him with a BS argument.
He did not care to consider someone willingly leaving massive ultrasonic crap when he said you wouldn't get staircases on the analogue output. He deserves prison for sure.

I maintain what I said

The facts:

1. "That is not the content of that video you referenced and pretend to argue against." <=== In the opening speech, he explained why he created the video. On the offical web site, he explicitly mentioned "As a followup to all the mail I got about digital waveforms and stairsteps, I demonstrate actual digital behavior on real equipment in our video Digital Show & Tell so you need not simply take me at my word here!". My writings argue against that.

2. "He does not claim what you quote him claiming. In the actual article he disagreed with using that resolution, 24/192 for music streaming." <=== The Hi-Res streaming prompted him to write the whole article 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed (xiph.org). It is not just streaming.
i.e. the Hi-Res streaming is the reason why he wrote the article but streaming is not the only thing he ague against. He argue against Hi-Res. Did you read the whole article what he is writing about? For example, he wrote:

16 bit vs 24 bit​

OK, so 192kHz music files make no sense. Covered, done. What about 16 bit vs. 24 bit audio?

It's true that 16 bit linear PCM audio does not quite cover the entire theoretical dynamic range of the human ear in ideal conditions. Also, there are (and always will be) reasons to use more than 16 bits in recording and production.

None of that is relevant to playback; here 24 bit audio is as useless as 192kHz sampling. The good news is that at least 24 bit depth doesn't harm fidelity. It just doesn't help, and also wastes space.

Did he mention streaming? I am sorry but to me your "fact" is misleading too.

If you truely believe that he just against Hi-Res streaming, do you think he will agree that Hi-Res can help to reconstruct better audio signal when compared with CD?

3. 'He wrote that in 2012' <=== I am confused. It may be a fact that he wrote that in 2012 (as I didn't check) but how this 'fact" is related to our discussion here? Do you want to say that his writing could be incorrect because it was more than 10 years old? Or you want to say that his writing should be right as it was written more than 10 year ago. Sorry for my ignorance, I really didn't get what you want to say about 2012.

 

[sunjam]

Sunjam,

You seem to have overlooked my earlier question.

Your argument seems to be centred around the premise that you hear something different with hi res audio so you are digging deeper to understand why.

Is that correct ?

My question was how old are you ?

Additionally, do you have any other day to day examples of your hearing ability outside of audio that might help demonstrate that your hearing extends beyond scientific knowledge ?

I know you prefer the technical stuff but there are two parts involved in audio, what makes sound via a moving diaphragm and what happens when the sound waves hit our ears. Both sides are equally important but you don’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in explaining the second part and how your specific auditory experience forms the foundation of your interest and ultimately for your argument.

"Your argument seems to be centred around the premise that you hear something different with hi res audio so you are digging deeper to understand why." <=== Yes and no.
Yes: I hear the difference between Hi-Res and CD <== not an argument for our discussion.
No: I was not asking why

"My question was how old are you ?" <=== I bought and listened to cassette and LP in the past

"Additionally, do you have any other day to day examples of your hearing ability outside of audio that might help demonstrate that your hearing extends beyond scientific knowledge ?" <=== No, I believe that I am just a regular guy. I don't think I can hear 20kHz or higher.

'I know you prefer the technical stuff but there are two parts involved in audio, what makes sound via a moving diaphragm and what happens when the sound waves hit our ears. Both sides are equally important" <=== Yes, I agree.

'but you don’t seem to have any interest whatsoever in explaining the second part and how your specific auditory experience forms the foundation of your interest and ultimately for your argument.' <=== Sorry for my ignorance, I don't really get what you want to say. Do you mean I need to explain how/why people hear the difference? Sorry, I really don't get it. I didn't use any of my hearing as my argument for the discussion. I don't think I use "I can hear the difference" as the argument for our discussion as it is my own personal experience. Correct?

 

[theveterans]

It's only a penalty if you think that the ripples are something wrong. I've never heard any convincing explanation why that would be. Most of the time it's just hand-waving and saying "look, this one is flat before and after the impulse so it must be better" and what I see is "look, the filter does literally nothing and doing nothing is the opposite of what I want from interpolating/reconstructing filter".

This is where DAC marketing comes to play

When you play 1536k Hz digitized input of an analog audio input you risk that the file will contain some junk above 20 kHz and this may increase IMD. And usually the file will have some junk because otherwise audiophiles would cry foul that they only get upsampled files and not true hi-res

BTW, I've heard some guy wrote an article about that

Not sure about PCM since you can have a super clean DXD original masters or DXD that has lots of ultrasonic junk, but DSD no matter what (it's 1-bit after all) will have lots of ultrasonics after passband, and oh yeah that's hi-rez

Oh no, but what about the "perfect" impulse response? You'll lose that if you oversample outside of DAC (assuming that there it is done with a proper filter).

Marketing for NOS and filterless

 

[sunjam]

I'm sure you're only asking /s
Here you have it:
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Thanks for the update. Could you access the video from the main article 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed (xiph.org)? Looks like I can't

 

[sunjam]

Meanwhile, you use measurement of a 32bit chip with an option simulating some bad parody of NOS nearly filterless DAC to output a garbage signal that tries to appeal to the historic AKM R2R chip followers. And you use that for some grandstanding operation(technically clickbait) about CD and hires.

Did AKM make any R2R chip before? If yes, could you let me know which one? I am very interested to find out. Thanks.