A physical model of the head you mean? I did a similar suggestion in the past, with an additional idea: Include the ear canal in the model, and build in high quality microphones inside the head, with the membranes in the position of the ear drums. So you can measure at the position of the ear...

Here I see "video is not available" with this link, so I watched this one instead: (What is the title of the song in your video, bighot?)

This is the sound science forum. If you spout complete nonsense it will be called complete nonsense.

I won't waste my time looking at that video. There exist audibly transparent (audibly perfect) DACs for very affordable prices. Once you have such a DAC you don't need a better one, audibly better than audibly transparent is impossible. Furthermore we know that Rob Watts sometimes says the most...

I already have that with my Smyth Realiser A16 using personal PRIRs and HPEQs, and also using (free) HeSuVi with my personal hrtf based preset (extracted from my A16 using (free) Impulcifer, of course a direct measurement with Impulcifer is also possible then you don't need an expensive A16...

As VandyMan said, unrelated to the problem. The automatic volume lowering is triggered by digital clipping and has no relation to this manually set maximum. No. If the PS5 output was lower then the digital clipping would start at a higher (digital) volume setting of the A16 but at the same...

That is correct. Yes. @mei09891: I also recommend to switch the automatic volume limiter on again, and never switch it off.

2 sci-fi movies from the seventies that pop up in my mind now: Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) The Omega Man (1971)

Although this is almost certainly not what is happening here, still interesting: "AI deception: A survey of examples, risks, and potential solutions" https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(24)00103-X

I stopped reading posts after this. (Not specifically because of this, but because I am tired of it all). You are not a pain because of some weakness on ASR or here, but because you ignore many things and just repeat the same falsehoods. For starters: You pick a (simulation of) a broken DAC...

You are just making a silly diversionary maneuver. He is talking in the context of music files for consumers. And whether it's downloads or streaming or whatever is completely irrelevant. The point is that 192kHz music files for consumers make no sense.

The word oversampling is also commonly used for upsampling in a DAC. I am surprised, can it be that you don't know what NOS in NOS DAC stands for?

Of course it is an argument for our discussion because the reason why "Hi-Res" is useless for consumers is because nobody can hear the difference. Many, many people think they can hear the difference, but in a proper test they can not. So, did you do a proper test or... Oh, I forgot: Or maybe...

What do you not understand? That 44.1/16 is audibly transparent? Maybe you thought you heard a difference with "high-res"? Maybe you did a uncontrolled, sighted or not properly level matched listening comparison? Or maybe you inadvertently compared two different masters (or otherwise...

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...