• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Comparison: PCM DXD DSD (Sound Liaison High Res Format Comparison)

voodooless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,016
Likes
2,907
Location
Netherlands
People who believe in the absolute infallibility of our currently primitive levels of science are extremists and they are just as bad as people who believe in voodoo. Remember science is just a tool and our understanding of human ability is very limited at this time. Certainly 300 years from now everything will be known about how the human brain detects and interprets sound and all things audio will be measurable. However at this time in history, we are no where near that yet. Just because you can’t prove something exists with our current very primitive scientific abilities, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. What is far more likely Is that people use science as an ego protection mechanism to deny their own lack of ability.

Audiophile of the gaps argumentation... "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
 

e84793

Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
0
80 year olds in double blind tests is a blatant straw man argument. Unless you are somehow arguing that 80 year olds might have some hitherto unknown superpower that younger people don't.

Did you read my original statement? It was the exact opposite of how you described it. My point was that your “science” doesn’t take into account the abilities of the audience, such as elderly people with diminished hearing abilities. If anything I am suggesting that young people have a superpower called “undamaged hearing”.

The problem with having blind religious faith in science is that science does not have infinite knowledge. Without using science to normalize the abilities of a listening audience, the results of a double blind test are subjective. Science is only as good as the people who use it and even the smartest among us make mistakes and have incomplete knowledge.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that you are tone deaf and you can’t sing to save your life.
 

Francis Vaughan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 6, 2018
Messages
933
Likes
4,552
Location
Adelaide Australia
Did you read my original statement? It was the exact opposite of how you described it. My point was that your “science” doesn’t take into account the abilities of the audience, such as elderly people with diminished hearing abilities. If anything I am suggesting that young people have a superpower called “undamaged hearing”.
Sorry, you clearly totally missed the point. So much so that it is hard to begin to work out where to start, so I won't.
You might like to Google "straw man argument". Then learn what a double blind and ABX test is. Until you do there is no point continuing.
 

e84793

Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
0
People who believe their own senses over established science are flat-earthers that belong in the middle ages. That approach to studying the natural world has been discredited for centuries. "I'm hearing things, therefore science is wrong" isn't an argument worth debating.

i am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that people have too much religious faith in science and their own ability to use it. I am 100% in favor of the use of science as long as you accept the fact that science is deeply limited. For example, in the 1980s the best science told us that all cholesterol is bad for us and that has now been shown to be wrong because of our limited understanding of cholesterol in the 1980s. The bottom line is that most of the time we don’t know what we don’t know. Science is deeply limited and flawed by the people who use it. Don’t worship science like it is the word of God. We are constantly discovering that our scientific beliefs are wrong. That doesn’t mean we should abandon science, it is the best tool we have and we should use it as best we can. Just recognized it’s not perfect and often wrong through incompleteness.
 

Frgirard

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
820
Likes
479
Did you read my original statement? It was the exact opposite of how you described it. My point was that your “science” doesn’t take into account the abilities of the audience, such as elderly people with diminished hearing abilities. If anything I am suggesting that young people have a superpower called “undamaged hearing”.
i am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that people have too much religious faith in science and their own ability to use it. I am 100% in favor of the use of science as long as you accept the fact that science is deeply limited. For example, in the 1980s the best science told us that all cholesterol is bad for us and that has now been shown to be wrong because of our limited understanding of cholesterol in the 1980s. The bottom line is that most of the time we don’t know what we don’t know. Science is deeply limited and flawed by the people who use it. Don’t worship science like it is the word of God. We are constantly discovering that our scientific beliefs are wrong. That doesn’t mean we should abandon science, it is the best tool we have and we should use it as best we can. Just recognized it’s not perfect and often wrong through incompleteness.

What confusion!
 

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,167
Likes
3,549
i am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that people have too much religious faith in science and their own ability to use it. I am 100% in favor of the use of science as long as you accept the fact that science is deeply limited. For example, in the 1980s the best science told us that all cholesterol is bad for us and that has now been shown to be wrong because of our limited understanding of cholesterol in the 1980s.

Not really. Our knowledge has refined the concept of what was bad. It isn't as if the finding was completely reversed.

The bottom line is that most of the time we don’t know what we don’t know. Science is deeply limited and flawed by the people who use it. Don’t worship science like it is the word of God. We are constantly discovering that our scientific beliefs are wrong. That doesn’t mean we should abandon science, it is the best tool we have and we should use it as best we can. Just recognized it’s not perfect and often wrong through incompleteness.

Exactly, and the methods to add stuff to science are known. Those do not include rambling about incompleteness.
 

e84793

Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
0
Sorry, you clearly totally missed the point. So much so that it is hard to begin to work out where to start, so I won't.
You might like to Google "straw man argument". Then learn what a double blind and ABX test is. Until you do there is no point continuing.
I agree, I wouldn’t want you to have to “lower” yourself to have a discussion with an obviously intellectually inferior human such as myself. I apologize Sire, for wasting your time.
 

e84793

Member
Joined
May 11, 2021
Messages
7
Likes
0
Not really. Our knowledge has refined the concept of what was bad. It isn't as if the finding was completely reversed.



Exactly, and the methods to add stuff to science are known. Those do not include rambling about incompleteness.

In my example, the conclusions that were drawn from the best science of the day were entirely wrong and caused more harm than good. By the way, your characterization of my discussion of incompleteness is entirely subjective and not scientific at all
 

pkane

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
2,449
Likes
3,963
Location
North-East
i am suggesting nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that people have too much religious faith in science and their own ability to use it. I am 100% in favor of the use of science as long as you accept the fact that science is deeply limited.

Limited compared to what? Generalizations are not helpful. Actual evidence demonstrating where science is incomplete is what drives scientific progress. Your assessment of "deeply limited" is based on what, exactly? Lay intuition based on no knowledge or understanding of current science is truly worthless.
 

Frgirard

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
820
Likes
479
In my example, the conclusions that were drawn from the best science of the day were entirely wrong and caused more harm than good. By the way, your characterization of my discussion of incompleteness is entirely subjective and not scientific at all

Your arguments are a compendium of audiophile nonsense. Whether you like it or not, your hearing and that of humanity cannot be freed from
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour
 

sarumbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
1,045
Location
Southampton, UK
"We ALL???" use the version Adobe's given us and pay a monthly fee for the privilege?
No, I don't believe I do

As for suggesting that you use Adobe 3.0 or an obsolete O.S....
I don't believe I did that either

I simply choose to use whatever works in a specific situation
You may choose to use whatever works or doesn't work for your specific situation

Artificial limitations are arbitrary limits and are not required for the software to function correctly, but are imposed upon you by one or more entities, including the developers, legal dept, management or others for various reasons (sometimes known only to them)
My dear sir, you are either refuting what I said for the sake of argument or your understanding of the language is different to mine.

Adobe says: "...you may not find the download link for some versions of Creative Suite including Creative Suite 4 and all earlier versions in your account."
https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/kb/downloaded-older-app.html

and Microsoft says XP support has ended:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ww/mic...ars, support for,to a modern operating system.

Both publishers clearly says that Adobe 3.0 and Windows XP are obsolete products. The dictionary meaning of the word obsolete is "They are no longer produced; out of date".

Furthermore, calling limits of a software that is sold "as is" (read your T&C document) as artificial is as strange as it gets. At this stage I will stop engaging in a conversation with you. I don't like argument for argument sake.
 

sarumbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
1,045
Location
Southampton, UK
I know this is off topic, but it is worthy of addressing. AC bias is a really interesting topic. It doesn't really operate like dither does, but nor is its operation really fully understood from a mathematical basis. It is just so complex. However a lot is understood. Something the analog enthusiasts don't like is that in many ways the bias signal is very close to a sample clock. It drives the recording magnetisation up and down through the hysteresis curve of the tape. The audio signal riding on top of the bias causes the tape to be left with different magnetisation on each cycle of the bias. So whilst the levels of magnetisation are not quantised, the signal is effectively sampled. However the sampling is over a variable time as well, so the overall final result is a very complicated beast. You can record without a bias signal, but using a bias signal improves what the tape records significantly, so in that respect there is a common thread with noise shaped dither.
As a veteran recording engineer I congratulate you on the eloquent way you simplified such a complex issue. :)

As I said on a different post the spike did look a bit too wide to be a single sine wave. Not trusting my memory, I downloaded the manual and can confirm that the Studer A-80 use a 150kHz bias frequency. Hence the spike on the graph is not the caused by the bias.
 

sarumbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
1,244
Likes
1,045
Location
Southampton, UK
People who believe in the absolute infallibility of our currently primitive levels of science are extremists and they are just as bad as people who believe in voodoo.
I can't believe that I am reading this! :eek:

Dear sir, you may be in the wrong forum. Almost everything you will read here will look like voodoo for you. :D
 
Last edited:

Bullwinkle J Moose

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
217
Likes
82
My dear sir, you are either refuting what I said for the sake of argument or your understanding of the language is different to mine.

Adobe says: "...you may not find the download link for some versions of Creative Suite including Creative Suite 4 and all earlier versions in your account."
https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/kb/downloaded-older-app.html

and Microsoft says XP support has ended:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ww/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-windows-xp-support#:~:text=After 12 years, support for,to a modern operating system.

Both publishers clearly says that Adobe 3.0 and Windows XP are obsolete products. The dictionary meaning of the word obsolete is "They are no longer produced; out of date".

Furthermore, calling limits of a software that is sold "as is" (read your T&C document) as artificial is as strange as it gets. At this stage I will stop engaging in a conversation with you. I don't like argument for argument sake.

My dear sir, you are absolutely correct....

Your understanding of the language is clearly different to mine!

"Adobe and Microsoft" clearly says that Adobe 3.0 and Windows XP are obsolete products. The dictionary meaning of the word obsolete is "They are no longer produced; out of date".

and yet.....
I say they are never out of date or unsupported because I still support them for "my" use cases

I seriously doubt if I could care less whether Microsoft or Adobe has stopped support on these products
Their opinion on the matter is irrelevant (as is your opinion) to the software's current state of usability


So have a nice day!
:)
 
Last edited:

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,062
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
Hello amirm and friends,

I really thank you for this nice and educational thread.

As charleski kindly shared in post #35, I could successfully install the latest and final version (ver. 2.1.0 for 64 bit Windows 10, license free) of MusicScope, then I analyzed some of "HF noise suspicious" DSD tracks/albums (download-purchased) in my music library.

I could well confirm your concerns in HF noises in the suspicious tracks, and I could quickly prepare software crossover EKIO's configuration having efficient cut-off filters for such HF noises.

For the details, you would please visit my specific new post #362 entitled "Near Ultrasound - Ultrasound" Noises in Improperly Engineered/Processed HiRes DSD Music Tracks and EKIO's DSP-EQ Configuration to Cut-Off Such Noises in my multichannel multi-driver multi-amplifier project in Member Area.

Thank you indeed, again.
 

cyph3r

New Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Messages
2
Likes
1
Location
Switzerland
I wonder what impat high volume ultrasonic noise is for for hearing. I could not find many scientific studies around the topic but I cant imagine its great for your ears in the long term.
 

Frgirard

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
820
Likes
479
I wonder what impat high volume ultrasonic noise is for for hearing. I could not find many scientific studies around the topic but I cant imagine its great for your ears in the long term.

Your hearing work as a low pass filter. You can't process ultrasonic sound because you don't have the sensors

I never found scientific study on the fact than i have no wings.
 

dualazmak

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Messages
1,009
Likes
1,062
Location
Ichihara City, Chiba Prefecture, Japan
I wonder what impat high volume ultrasonic noise is for for hearing. I could not find many scientific studies around the topic but I cant imagine its great for your ears in the long term.

Yes, agree with you.

And gene_stl just kindly shared here in my thread that "As Amir says in his videos it could trigger oscillation or amplifier problems such as intermodulation , aliasing down, using up headroom, possibly even baking a tweeter voice coil."

As shared in my latest post there, I am now intensively testing and evaluating the EKIO configuration with 48 dB/Oct L-R high-cut filters at 22.049 kHz;
WS001592.JPG


So far I found no audible negative effect with this EKIO configuration, and therefore it would be highly possible to use this configuration as my standard one from now on.

Regarding high-cut digital filters in software crossover within PC to cut-off the HF noises in HiRes music tracks, I would highly appreciate having further discussion on my thread, if needed.
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,016
Likes
2,907
Location
Netherlands
Your hearing work as a low pass filter.

As do most transducers. There will be very few speakers of headphones that produce anything above 40 kHz. Most amps won’t go much higher either, and some even will get unstable when feeding ultrasonic (design flaw obviously).
 

Frgirard

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
820
Likes
479
We can do a lot of things in audiophilia without knowing what an acoustic wave is and how it is propagated.
 
Top Bottom