Now we can come full circle: Hi-res is not the correct word. But closely related to your question: oversampling plus digital filtering is very usefull for reconstructing the audio signal (because a simpler analog filter can be used), and that is why NOS DACs are obsolete! 44.1/16 is audibly...

Apparently whatever the settings are, the way they are it is not working according to the requirements of digital audio to function correct, otherwise you would see perfect sine waves on the output. I don't know what that chip or that DAC is doing exacly but I can think of some possibilities...

You really don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about, do you?

No, he said: The average electron flow is zero on AC. They move back and forth and in circles and left and right and up and down. [Edit: oh, just missed the last post.]

Consistency or repeatability does not imply that there is no bias at work. If for whatever reason - at some momement - a belief is seeded in your head, consciously or subconsciously, that A sounds different from B then your brain can consistently make you "hear" that difference when you know...

@Davesrose already kind of said it, but maybe this is a little bit clearer: DTS X Neural would be the DTS X equivalent of the "DSU" (Dolby Surround Upmixer, that can upmix traditional 7.1, 5.1, and 2.0 to something with height channels). (And like he said, DTS X is the DTS version of Dolby...

I remember really noticing the doppler effect most in the case of vehicles with siren passing by (police car, ambulance, fire truck). And I mean noticing spontaniously, without thinking about it in advance and at the same time very consciously, impossible to ignore.

I sense a miscommunication, as I understood it DScience was asking if a different digital source connected to the same external DAC would make a difference.

The snapshots are taken from a band limited signal, and there is only one unique band limited signal that fits with the snapshots: and that of course is the sampled signal. So from the snapshots we also know everything that happened inbetween them. This is proven mathematics by Nyquist and...

@Litlgi74: Oh, wait, now I understand what @GalaxyFolder was trying to do and why he needed stereo mixdown: listen to the demo's on your website(?)

Because it is useless to repeat the same discussion, especially because you don't understand how digital audio works and you refuse to learn how it works. (There are no stair steps in the output of the DAC. (Perfect) stair steps are a summation of an (infinite) set of sine waves at different...

@castleofargh: may as well lock this thread also, or better: delete it completely

The reason why your other thread was locked was that you refused to read up on how digital audio really works and kept on repeating this nonsense. The output of a DAC is a perfectly continuous wave form that is reconstructed from the sample points. No sample is "played for 1/192kth second"...

I don't understand what you mean. Or is it just that you want to compare virtual speakers with normal headphone stereo? (That is what the stereo mixdown function is for: produce a normal mixdown to stereo without virtual speakers. However, to be able to use the stereo mixdown function you have...

Not, unless something is defective or some digital signal processing is done.

This subject was already brought up and discussed in a locked thread (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/mqa.967619/ , started by the same op, Audiophiliac).

Again: The codecs don't cause dynamic compression. People sometimes mixup data compression with dynamic compression.

@mei09891, to explain further: When using eARC, enhanced Audio Return Channel, the audio goes through the HDMI cable in the opposite direction, so from an HDMI input to an HDMI output. The trick is that this way the same cable can be used that is normally used in the traditional way (to pass on...

So, you still don't know the difference between science and marketing bull?

To clarify further what @BS5711 maybe had in the back in his mind with "splitting hairs with the specific words": Not everyone here uses the word hearing with the same intended meaning, and even the same person doesn't always use it with the same intended meaning. In 1) the intended meaning is...

That is not an established fact, that is what you think you heard. No, you think that you can, it is not an established fact.

No. Permanence and repeatability don't control for bias. If you do for example a proper level matched double blind ABX test then you have controlled for bias, and by repeating the test often enough you get statistical significance. (In case you don't know ABX: the test subject can listen to A...

And I forgot to add to , or don't understand it. For example seeming to think that permanence or repeatability is somehow an indicator against bias, seeming to think bias is always or mostly random. (Next to many other misconceptions.)

You seem to think that bias influencing perception is a rare thing that only happens on rare occasion to a few people, [Edit: and that we think:] mainly audiophiles, and not to us. That is not the case. It happens all the time, to everyone, also me. It has nothing to do with your personality or...

Ah, good to know you use an external DAC. I still could see a slight, slight possibility that a hdd drawing more power from the node could influence it's analog output performance (in which case the node was not designed to power an external hdd, so it would be a case of user error or wrong...