[bigshot]

Get a Mac.

See the video link in my sig for a demonstration of what -40dB actually sounds like. For the purposes of playing music in the home, that is inaudible.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Get a Mac.

Linux and ALSA have me covered by now, but I'm thinking about switching.

 

[Davesrose]

For now, it seems he got something correct, there is a gradual increase of intermodulation distortion in the interpolation implementation of Windows Audio Stack due to poor filtering (potentially audible since IMD is around -40 dBFS). Archimago measured the Windows Audio Stack and Linux (PulseAudio), Linux showing a pretty good result. Here the link: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2015/11/measurements-windows-10-audio-stack.html

I'm not really sure how relevant this is for modern implementations? The article is referring to Direct Sound....something that has been depreciated. Windows has been relying on WASAPI. I have a HTPC that I use for 4K HDR and it can bitstream audio formats to Dolby Atmos/DTS:X. They are all apps that do adhere to current device standards. Edit: RE Mac...actually, I do have Macs for development, but have been PC user for 3D animation. One thing I have found is that PC tends to be better about HDMI output for Dolby standards (because of the new standards I've just mentioned).

 

[KeithPhantom]

I'm not really sure how relevant this is for modern implementations? The article is referring to Direct Sound....something that has been depreciated. Windows has been relying on WASAPI. I have a HTPC that I use for 4K HDR and it can bitstream audio formats to Dolby Atmos/DTS:X. They are all apps that do adhere to current device standards.

WASAPI should be a direct connection with decoder (DAC), so I wouldn't expect to have trouble in there. But the fact that this is present in a modern OS due to possible "hardware constraints" (I bet my old Pentium 4 can do interpolation and filtering correctly without skipping a beat) isn't good.

 

[Davesrose]

WASAPI should be a direct connection with decoder (DAC), so I wouldn't expect to have trouble in there. But the fact that this is present in a modern OS due to possible "hardware constraints" (I bet my old Pentium 4 can do interpolation and filtering correctly without skipping a beat) isn't good.

Still, look at the date of your link: 2015. It is outdated itself. I'm agnostic when it comes to PC vs Mac, but when it comes to multimedia, I think Windows 2018 Creators update probably was the best all round setup for video and audio (IE Dolby Atmos, native HDR, etc). Me thinks your link about audio processing for 2 channel upsampling has changed as well.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Still, look at the date of your link: 2015. It is outdated itself. I'm agnostic when it comes to PC vs Mac, but when it comes to multimedia, I think Windows 2018 Creators update probably was the best all round setup for video and audio (IE Dolby Atmos, native HDR, etc). Me thinks your link about audio processing for 2 channel has changed as well.

True, still, I don't trust Windows for privacy stuff. Also, I like how Linux feels and how open it is, bit I agree it has being improving these years.

 

[bigshot]

Let's just award him the Nobel Prize anyway.

 

[Davesrose]

True, still, I don't trust Windows for privacy stuff. Also, I like how Linux feels and how open it is, bit I agree it has being improving these years.

There's quite a few resources about what to disable for not having any tracking. My biggest complaint with Windows is why they have to keep changing their simplified control panel...to being even more unusable. At least there's a link to the classic control panel. Since getting into software development, I've been starting to default with Unix CLI and use Git for PC and Terminal for Mac. Most interesting thing I have found with my relatively new MacBook Pro: it has a T2 chip: which prevents 3rd party OS from being installed (so Linux kernel crashes....there's an unofficial hack that *may* work). You're left with Mac versions and keeping to Windows in Bootcamp (so I do have a Windows 10 Pro instance for having HDR and Atmos output with HDMI if I want to present movies on the go).

 

[ScareDe2]

Make Sound Noise-Free Again.

 

[bigshot]

Make Sound Noise-Free Again.

Make this forum and the threads in it noise free.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Inaudibility is fake news.
[2] There are many undergoing researches about ultrasounds and their impact on humans.
[3] Your claims only rely on audiometry using air conduction.
[4] Science is not settled about an audible limit.
[5] Science is not settled about anything ...
[6] It uses the 20-20khz conventionally because this is what is commonly observed in practice.

1. Everything is audible then .... Great, humankind doesn't need to spend billions on LIGOs, particle accelerators, radio telescopes, etc., we just need to get an audiophile to listen, for little more than the price of a Starbucks!

2. There's some ongoing research in the field of bone conduction and ultrasound. There's pretty much none in the field of the audibility of air pressure ultrasound because it's already been done, countless times.

3. Huh? Yes of course it is, this website is called "Head-Fi", not "Bone-Fi"! However, the proliferation of utterly ridiculous assertions/posts on this website indicates that maybe it should be called "Bonehead-Fi"! Consumer audio reproduction headphones/speakers output air pressure (sound) waves, didn't you know that?

4. This statement is a lie, it's been settled for many decades.

5. This statement is another lie. For example, do you really think that science "is not settled about" 1 + 1 = 2 ? Science is obviously "settled" about a great number of things.

6. No it's not! Science uses 20Hz - 20kHz because that's the maximum EVER observed in practice, the maximum observed in practice for adults actually averages more like 20Hz - 16kHz. It can be observed that some humans can detect air pressure (sound) waves up to around 25kHz or so, but ONLY with specifically manufactured artificial signals under specific laboratory/test conditions. HOWEVER, such signals + conditions do NOT exist "in practice" (either in the real world or in commercial music/sound recordings) and therefore, the assertion that "human hearing has a max range of 20Hz to 20kHz in practice" is NOT invalidated!

G

 

[bfreedma]

So our troll is now using the slogan of an anti-science politician to support his view of audio science... IMO, it's time for our Mod to step in and put an end to this fiasco.

And time to stop responding to such weak and obvious attempts at disruption and attention seeking from someone who is clearly here just for that. Unfortunately, even collectively, you can't fix willful ignorance.

 

[magicscreen]

It is very unfortunate the CD format is only 16/44. It is very limited.
Of course there is a big brain washing that 16/44 is enough.
They have to sell CDs.
Poor misguided children who have to listen digital format instead of analogue.

 

[castleofargh]

Inaudibility is fake news. There are many undergoing researches about ultrasounds and their impact on humans. Your claims only rely on audiometry using air conduction. Science is not settled about an audible limit. Science is not settled about anything in fact not even what is a women or a men. It uses the 20-20khz conventionally because this is what is commonly observed in practice.

I need to put a stop to the off topic at least. Enough sample rate in the bit depth topic.
Anybody willing to continue that conversation, please do it there instead:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/perception-of-ultrasounds.937809/#post-15749219



@bigshot, I've seen @ScareDe2 on some french forums several years ago(thought the nickname was some witty frenglish). I think he's Canadian, maybe? And is probably just himself. If he isn't, you're still making statements/allusions about it without proof, in Sound Science... Give me some freaking evidence or don't say stuff like that.
Give me the money! No that's something else.

Also, the biggest reason why it's hard to put 100% of the fault on @ScareDe2, is that you're playing the other side while making just as absolute statements and wild oversimplifications as he does. In that regard, neither of you is on the side of science, while both seem to argue that you are. You can clearly see that when he contests some of the stuff you said, it's mainly about your statements of all DAC sounding the same, ultrasounds being inaudible to humans, and all the stuff where it's so easy to find an exception to disprove your claim.

I know why you do it, I've argued against it too many times already, which is really the only reason why I mostly don't react anymore and maybe give the impression that I agree with you. But let's be clear that I do not like your oversimplifications. I don't think they should be the go to answers of a science oriented forum.
You say it's to avoid confusion for newbies so they can go focus on the important stuff, and that's a valid point for sure. But when it becomes the very reason why people disagree with you, oversimplifying has officially become the problem.

 

[jlawler]

So here's the challenge you face...

Is it for helping people along the journey of gaining a better understanding of the Science behind the Sounds we hear through our systems?

Which...would be a noble effort requiring high levels of patience, positivity and mentoring skills from the group!

I am obviously new here, but in my experience so far, I can say, sadly, mostly no... I have had to endure baseless accusations of impropriety (even though I gave an extreme amount of detail about what I did - not trying to hide anything).

Also, I have to ignore baseless assertions that I am not myself but instead someone else masquerading as another (which could be easily confirmed or denied by asking a mod to check by looking at access to my account - if the accuser had such a good faith suspicion). I'm sure this influeneces the opinion of others regarding me in a negative way and this is completely unfair as well as unwelcoming (which I had done nothing to deserve).

Of course, that would be awesome! The end result of this approach would, most likely, be an overall increase in the knowledge-base of Head-Fi and also the size of this group as its reputation for being helpful SMEs spread throughout the rest of Head-Fi.

Or is it something entirely different?
Only you can judge how this interchange is/has been beneficial to you. If you find the dialogue helpful...that's great. If not...don't expect much to change -- the 'data' says otherwise.

Why should I have to enter a gauntlet in order to have a conversation? I don't think it encourages dialogue or community.