[sunjam]

Yes, I reinterpret while you look right into his soul.
Have fun feeding those pointless delusions. I've had enough of pretending to have a logic conversation.

Please don't pretend. I know it is difficult.

Since you agreed point 1 and point 2 above (I assumed, please let me know if it is not the case), let's continue my logical reasoning.

If you believe that he doesn't mean "Hi-Res is useless" even he uses the phrase "192kHz music files make no sense" in his article, please let me know what he meant from your understanding then. If you agree these two phrases are the same in our context, I will use these two phrases interchangebly from now on.

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

So, to summarize:

1. he claims "192kHz music files make no sense" on his article (aka Hi-Res is useless)
2. 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")
3. 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")

Analysis with critical thinking:

He attempted to use "fact 1" and "fact 2" to support his claim.
He attempted to demonstrate with lab equipments that "fact 1" is factual
He attempted to demonstrate with lab equipments that "fact 2" is factual

Let's check if "fact 1" and "fact 2" are factual or not.

Results:

During our discussions in this thread earlier, I showed that:

1. "fact 1" is not factual.

Reason: We saw a real stair-step waveform from a real world DAC output (i.e. from Topping E30) when it was fed with a perfect 1k digital sine wave. The final audio ouput wavefrom was reconstructed when Topping E30 is set with a properly designed filter F-5. i.e. the DAC is working properly by design when it reconstructs the following ouput.

The waveform is shown as below (source: https://addictedtoaudio.com.au/blogs/how-to/how-to-pick-the-best-filter-setting-for-your-dac):

2. "fact 2" is not factual.

Reason: We understand that there is no perfect filter in reality and there is quantization noise in the final audio output. We had discussed that earlier in this thread about it here.

Therefore, the reconstructed waveform cannot be "losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal"

Conclusion

Given "fact 1" and "fact 2" are not factual, people with critical thinking cannot accept the claim is correct unless there is other facts to support the claim

===================================
Food for thought:

When he states the "fact 1" and "fact 2", i.e.

"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")
"The analog signal can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal" ("fact 2")

Did he actually know that a DAC can reconstruct stair-step waveform with a DAC?
Did he actually know the analog signal reconstructed is indeed lossy, not perfectly smooth, and not with exact timing of the original analog signal?

If he did not know these when he created the article/video around 2012, I would question his qualification for such topics. (I checked his education background. He is a MIT graduate. Do you think he should know or not???)

If he did know these are not factual when he created the article/video around 2012, I would question his intention for creating the article/video.

I don't know the answer for the above questions. The only things I know is that both "fact 1" and "fact 2" are not factual.

 

[Ghoostknight]

What I found is the ess dac made the songs go into shrill mode and causes fatigue faster. The sound in between beats is full apparent in the r2r dacs and somewhat apparent in the mb2, while the ess (AKM too) are not.

i also just found out with testing the BLA interface how ESS dacs "can not" sound... i had 3 ess dacs before and i can confirm that something is definitely off with the highs, the bla interface actually has a older CS chip which sounds like it has way better transient response, not only in the highs but there its most apparent

 

[eq1849]

To those saying 16bit is good enough, I simply ask, can you not tell a difference between live music and 16/44.1?

The setup: live musician with acoustic guitar, one mic for vocals one for guitar, an amp, two speakers.

 

[493756]

i also just found out with testing the BLA interface how ESS dacs "can not" sound... i had 3 ess dacs before and i can confirm that something is definitely off with the highs, the bla interface actually has a older CS chip which sounds like it has way better transient response, not only in the highs but there its most apparent

Good points. The swaptronics (if you will) is almost infinite these days. The goal should be for an individual to find what works for them. It is not selfish because if we use headphones it is for us only. Once we can find what we individually like we can experiment and it is like a muscle. Eventually we can help others after we help ourselves first

I always look to new products and often forget about the older ones and now I might look u to the older ess chips.

 

[gregorio]

Please don't pretend. I know it is difficult.

I’m sure you do know, from continuing experience!

let's continue my logical reasoning.

That is an oxymoron, we cannot follow your logical reasoning because it is NOT logical!

1. Topping E30 is set with a properly designed filter F-5. i.e. the DAC is working properly by design when it reconstructs the following ouput.

That is a lie! F5 is NOT a properly designed filter, it is an emulation of no filter at all and is therefore broken/faulty, as band limiting the signal is a requirement of digital audio!

2. Reason: We understand that there is no perfect filter in reality and there is quantization noise in the final audio output. We had discussed that earlier in this thread about it here.

Yes, we did discuss it earlier and you are ignoring that discussion, how is that logical? Perfect can be defined as no audible artefacts, Ie. “Audibly perfect” or “audibly transparent” when using the term “perfect” that is what is typically meant.

Therefore, the reconstructed waveform cannot be "losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal"

False, just for a change (not)! It absolutely can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly and with the exact timing of the original and well beyond audibly perfect as indeed Hi-res can. So this “fact” is irrelevant!

Given "fact 1" and "fact 2" are not factual, people with critical thinking cannot accept the claim is correct unless there is other facts to support the claim

What do you mean “given”, the only thing you’ve “given” is 1. A deliberate lie and 2. An irrelevant misrepresentation (which is probably also a deliberate lie)! Obviously any sane person will realise that a lie and a misrepresentation is the exact opposite of critical thinking and do NOT invalidate Monty’s claims!

Did he actually know that a DAC can reconstruct stair-step waveform with a DAC?

I’m sure he was aware there were an infinitesimally small number of broken DACs in use at that time. But he rightly ignored them because there was an infinitesimally small number of them and they were broken! Duh!

G

 

[gregorio]

To those saying CD is good enough, I simply ask, can you not tell a difference between live music and 16/44.1?

Err of course. I can tell the difference between a bunch of musicians performing in a concert venue and two speakers in my living room reproducing a “mix”. For starters, my living room is lot smaller and has fewer people in it!

That’s a very strange question, is there anyone who could not tell the difference?

G

 

[sunjam]

Sorry, I mis-read your message

 

[sunjam]

False, just for a change (not)! It absolutely can be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly and with the exact timing of the original and well beyond audibly perfect as indeed Hi-res can. So this “fact” is irrelevant!

How can it be losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing with imperfect filter and quantization error?

 

[Whazzzup]

sound science always a hoot

 

[gregorio]

You just helped to prove that the "fact 2" above is not factual.

Of course I didn’t but don’t let that get in the way of a lie.

In your reply, you basically confirmed that "The analog signal cannot be reconstructed losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing of the original analog signal" ("fact 2").

No I did not, I in fact stated the exact opposite but again, don’t let that stop you!

Otherwise, you cannot tell the difference between CD and live music.

i.e. with simple logic,

Glad we got that sorted, “with simple logic” I cannot tell the difference between a concert hall and my sitting room. That’s funny!

Could you let us know 1 or 2 above is correct?

Duh, neither of those lies is correct!

G

 

[sunjam]

Of course I didn’t but don’t let that get in the way of a lie.

No I did not, I in fact stated the exact opposite but again, don’t let that stop you!

Glad we got that sorted, “with simple logic” I cannot tell the difference between a concert hall and my sitting room. That’s funny!

Duh, neither of those lies is correct!

G

Please ignore my deleted reply as it was my mistake. I mis-read your reply

 

[sunjam]

Yes, we did discuss it earlier and you are ignoring that discussion, how is that logical? Perfect can be defined as no audible artefacts, Ie. “Audibly perfect” or “audibly transparent” when using the term “perfect” that is what is typically meant.

Cool, you mean your definition of "perfect" is not perfect? (pun indeed)

 

[gregorio]

How can it be losslessly, smoothly, and with the exact timing with imperfect filter and quantization error?

Don’t you think you should have asked that question BEFORE you posted a bunch of BS?

Let me give you an obvious example: Let’s say we playback a recording at a loud but reasonable peak 90dB SPL. Then let’s say we have losses, a lack of smoothness or some other filter artefacts at -120dB. What SPL level is that?

Lastly, enough with the quantization error BS, there isn’t any unless you use a broken DAC!

G

 

[sunjam]

I wrote the following on my blog regarding the "same" and looks like it is applicable here

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

What do you mean by the "same"???

I believe that it is extremely simple (like 1+1=2), e.g.

1.000 is same as 1.000 (I think there is no disgreement on this)

To me, it is pretty clear to me that there is no question asked too that 1.001 is not the same as 1.000

Do you share the same view? I thought all the people would share the same view but.... to be honest, I am not sure now after joining a few discussions on ASR...

Here is a tough question:

Question 1: "Do you see 1.00000000000001 same as 1.00000000000000???"

Are there something can be considered as "the same but different"? Hmm... how often we hear people say A and B are the same but different in Blah... Blah.....

You may say, "Man, I am totally confused. Are you mentally blocked?"

I hope I am not as I believe that's exactly how Science can help.

Science is a rigorous subject. There is no "the same but different" in real Science. I bet only pseudo-science would allow it.

If your answer is "they are different" for Question 1, you have a scientific mindset that based on proven scientific agrument. Your claim is an valid objective, scientific claim.

If your answer is "they are the same" for Question 1, you have, I believe, an engineering mindset based on practical usage. Your claim is not objective as your claim is based on your own belief that "1.00000000000001 is same as 1.00000000000000"

I understand in "reality", you may consider they are the same but, please, and please DON'T say objectively they are the same. Please don't. It is simply 100% wrong. (Do we have to define the term objectively next time?)

Do all the people have to conform to the GroupThink view that these two numbers are the same?

Sorry, my scientific mindset won't allow me to conform such view no matter what/how you do. They are NOT the same. Period.

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

 

[eq1849]

Err of course. I can tell the difference between a bunch of musicians performing in a concert venue and two speakers in my living room reproducing a “mix”. For starters, my living room is lot smaller and has fewer people in it!

That’s a very strange question, is there anyone who could not tell the difference?

G

The setup I'm talking about....live musician with an acoustic guitar with mics/amp to a set of speakers. When he takes a break he plays recorded music through the same setup.

Doesn't sound the same.