[gregorio]

I thought the below is a fact (even I didn't ask ChatGPT for its reply). Correct?

As ever when you make a false assertion and then ask if it’s correct, No, it is not correct! Although, it’s possibly correct that you “thought” it was a fact (even though it isn’t).

This may probably help them to tell if they are lucky ones who can save some money.

You mean “help them to tell if they are lucky ones who” are human beings with human hearing?

(I am not that lucky, LOL)

You’re not that lucky to be a human being, what are you then? lol

G

 

[castleofargh]

I asked a bot about sunjam:

Dealing with someone who is constantly dishonest can be challenging, but there are some steps you can take to address the situation:

1. Communicate openly: Talk to the person in a calm and non-confrontational manner about their dishonesty. Acknowledge the behavior and express your concerns about how it is affecting the relationship.

2. Set clear boundaries: Let the person know what behavior is not acceptable to you and what the consequences will be if they continue to be dishonest. It's important to be firm in upholding these boundaries.

3. Encourage honesty: Offer support and encouragement for the person to be more truthful in their interactions. Let them know that you value honesty and that it is an important part of any relationship.

4. Seek help if needed: If the person's dishonesty is causing significant harm or distress, consider seeking help from a therapist or counselor who can provide guidance on how to address the situation effectively.

5. Take care of yourself: Dealing with a consistently dishonest person can be emotionally draining. Make sure to prioritize self-care and seek support from friends or loved ones if you need it.

Remember that ultimately you cannot control someone else's behavior, but you can set boundaries and take steps to protect yourself from the negative impact of their dishonesty.

So:
1/ Sunjam, I'm concerned about your behavior
2/ You're going to get banned soon if you start the same BS again.
3/ I encourage you to stop and 4/ go see a psychologist and discuss your need for pretend discussions and consistent dishonesty for no clear purpose. I've been told(not by a bot) that it tends to have negative consequences socially where people don't trust you, and, in the long run, on your self-esteem.
5/ I'm going to be ok, thank you Mr bot.

 

[bigshot]

Square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. No home audio equipment reproduces them properly. And square waves do not exist in real world sound. You’ve already been told this.

It’s one thing to say something incorrect once or twice or eight times. But reproducing it over and over like a broken record with no acknowledgement of the replies is not acceptable communication in an Internet forum.

People who are unable to communicate with others and maintain a desire to respectfully interact with them don’t belong here. It’s long past time for a house cleaning.

 

[gregorio]

I tried, started at 11:30, at 13:30 I had enough.

The clue was in the title, which has got to be the understatement of the century. One audiophile can be “Totally bonkers”, so 22,198 of them “in one place” is way, way beyond “totally bonkers”!

5/ I'm going to be ok, thank you Mr bot.

G

 

[71 dB]

I got the following graph from a fellow member.

They show the effects of different oversampling filters on square wave. This may give you an idea of how critical the filter is when the DAC reconstruct the final audio signal.

How often do you encounter "square waves" in the music you listen to? Theoretical square waves are illegal in digital audio. Digital audio is band-limited. Only properly band-limited square waves are allowed. Those can ben handled with ease if needed.

By the time the transducers and possibly room acoustics have done their job, the band-limited square-wave has become almost unrecognisable for the eye, but it still sounds quite square-wavy to the ear unless the transducers and room acoustics are really bad.

The differences look dramatic to the EYE, but people use EARs to listen to sounds. Hardly any music contains square waves. Transducer impulse responses alone render these graphs much worse for the EYE, but not so much for the EAR.

 

[knownothing2]

Thanks for everyone’s input in this. One of the most interesting, provocative and perhaps far fetched thing Watts says in the interview has to do with timing errors in digital playback that are supposedly corrected by his new device. I would like to hear views on that specific claim if anyone is interested.

For me, there is something about listening to digital sources that I have always found a bit fatiguing compared to analog sources. The better sounding DACs (to me) have been those that forgo what seems like hyper realistic, lit up or ‘technicolor’ presentation for a more fluid or organic sound, that creates less listening fatigue. Can you listen to album after album at room filling volume with both engagement and lack of distress? If yes, give me more of that.

The Chord DACs I have listened to have both incision and musical flow. They generally measure well too. Interesting that the designer of those devices would feel the need to stray so far from sound defensible engineering in his pursuit of the holy upsampling grail. Spending six years working on anything is a labor of love. Perhaps misguided or obsessive love, but love nevertheless.

kn

 

[knownothing2]

FWIW, this thread has gotten me to revisit the upsampling feature in JRiver in my office system. I listened carefully to compressed mp3s up to 192/24 PCM files without up sampling, and upsampled by 2-8X times with the “audiophile grade resampler” in the application through my Surface Laptop. The DAC is a Chord Mojo 2 (which has nearly 41,000 taps) via asynchronous USB.

Maybe it’s a new version of JRiver, or the Mojo 2 was broken before (it has a new mainboard), but the upsampled versus non-upsampled files all sound really good to me. Maybe the upsampled files have a little better resolution in the treble. Is the timing better? Pfft. Whatever, the JRiver upsampling feature is staying engaged for now.

kn

 

[sunjam]

Dealing with someone who is constantly dishonest can be challenging, but there are some steps you can take to address the situation:

1. Communicate openly: Talk to the person in a calm and non-confrontational manner about their dishonesty. Acknowledge the behavior and express your concerns about how it is affecting the relationship.

2. Set clear boundaries: Let the person know what behavior is not acceptable to you and what the consequences will be if they continue to be dishonest. It's important to be firm in upholding these boundaries.

3. Encourage honesty: Offer support and encouragement for the person to be more truthful in their interactions. Let them know that you value honesty and that it is an important part of any relationship.

4. Seek help if needed: If the person's dishonesty is causing significant harm or distress, consider seeking help from a therapist or counselor who can provide guidance on how to address the situation effectively.

5. Take care of yourself: Dealing with a consistently dishonest person can be emotionally draining. Make sure to prioritize self-care and seek support from friends or loved ones if you need it.

Remember that ultimately you cannot control someone else's behavior, but you can set boundaries and take steps to protect yourself from the negative impact of their dishonesty.

I asked a bot about sunjam:


So:
1/ Sunjam, I'm concerned about your behavior
2/ You're going to get banned soon if you start the same BS again.
3/ I encourage you to stop and 4/ go see a psychologist and discuss your need for pretend discussions and consistent dishonesty for no clear purpose. I've been told(not by a bot) that it tends to have negative consequences socially where people don't trust you, and, in the long run, on your self-esteem.
5/ I'm going to be ok, thank you Mr bot.

1/ Thanks for your concern. I appreciate that . I'm concerned about your behaviour too.
2/ Feel free to ban me if you don't like me or my comments for whatever reasons in your mind (or hidden mind). But I will definitely file another official complaint too like I did before.
3/ "Encourage honesty: Offer support and encouragement for the person to be more truthful in their interactions" <== I encourage anyone with dishonesty to stop. Please act more truthfully.
4/ I encourage people who pretend discussions and consistent dishonesty for no clear purpose to seek help from a psychologist (or at least with a counselor)
5/ I'm going to be ok. thank you Mr Moderator.

(BTW, mind to share which BOT you aksed? Is it an imagainary BOT in your mind? If not, I would like to ask the BOT about castleofargh if possible.)

Responsibility of a moderator:
Just wondering as a moderator, are you concerned with posts like the below:

To be exact, do you think these two posts fits the item 4 you mentioned above? i.e.
"pretend discussions and consistent dishonesty for no clear purpose. I've been told(not by a bot) that it tends to have negative consequences socially where people don't trust you, and, in the long run, on your self-esteem."

Or you are ok with these posts and you do see a lot of values in these two posts? Are these BS to you? If not, what values you see.

Here are some of the characteristic of Intellectual Dishonesty (I borrowed the picture from the last post you made after the thread was closed for about 12 hours):

- Being deceptive fudging
- Pretending To Answer Questions While Not Answering Them
- Saying Things That Don't Make Sense But Pretending They Do
- Being Unfair While Pretending To Be Fair

Is the last one familiar to you?

Friendly reminder: I would suggest you not to delete this thread like what you did with my other thread before as you may need to make it re-appears again (for some mysterious reasons)

 

[sunjam]

Square waves are illegal signals in digital audio.

Is Electronic music NOT classified as digital audio?

EDIT: Ah... you are correct square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. They are in analog audio.

No wonder why digital filters that can correctly reconstruct music with correct timing of transience would sound more analog

p.s.: KORG ER-1 is an analog drum machine (Korg ElecTribe R (ER-1) | Vintage Synth Explorer)

 

[Somafunk]

Friendly reminder: I would suggest you not to delete this thread like what you did with my other thread before as you may need to make it re-appears again (for some mysterious reasons)

Passive aggressive behaviour indeed.

And no to the upscaler nonsense, whatever I get from Apple Music/Tidal through roon is perfectly fine, along with my 1tb ALAC rips from my cd collection.

 

[bigshot]

He wouldn’t last five minutes doing this crap in any other forum in head fi. If something isn’t done soon, I’m going to stop holding myself back.

And it won’t be rage… I’ll enjoy it.

 

[theveterans]

EDIT: Ah... you are correct square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. They are in analog audio.

Some CD recorded samples can be clipped generating a filter response of a square and some digital created synths can certainly contain square or rectangular waves that can also reveal filter response

Remember the Archimago examples I provided on the closed thread

 

[bigshot]

Completely irrelevant when it comes to playing commercially recorded music on a home stereo.

 

[gregorio]

Feel free to ban me if you don't like me or my comments for whatever reasons in your mind (or hidden mind).

What do you mean “for whatever reasons”, how many times have you been told that pseudoscience, fallacies, cherry-picked evidence a flat out lying is not acceptable here? In fact, how would any sane adult think that would be acceptable in any science discussion forum? Yet not only do you just keep doing it but then you lie about why you are being censored! How is that not trolling?

But I will definitely file another official complaint too like I did before.

You’re going to complain for being banned for continually being rude and trolling?

I encourage anyone with dishonesty to stop. Please act more truthfully.

Aren’t you “anyone”? Before trying to “encourage anyone”, why don’t you start with encouraging yourself to act more truthfully? Have you never come across the word “hypocrite”?

I encourage people who pretend discussions and consistent dishonesty for no clear purpose to seek help from a psychologist

When is your first appointment then, or are you saying you have a clear purpose for your consistent dishonesty?

Friendly reminder: I would suggest you not to delete this thread like what you did with my other thread before as you may need to make it re-appears again (for some mysterious reasons)

You responded to a thread where the reasons it was deleted and reinstated (but locked) were discussed, so how is that “for some mysterious reasons”? Enough lying already!

EDIT: Ah... you are correct square waves are illegal signals in digital audio. They are in analog audio.

Great, so not only don’t you understand digital audio, you don’t understand analogue audio either, well done!

No wonder why digital filters that can correctly reconstruct music with correct timing of transience would sound more analog

Not only don’t you understand digital audio, you don’t even know why it was invented. Why on earth would digital audio want to “sound more analog”? Do you also think a Ferrari should perform more like a donkey?

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Thanks for everyone’s input in this. One of the most interesting, provocative and perhaps far fetched thing Watts says in the interview has to do with timing errors in digital playback that are supposedly corrected by his new device. I would like to hear views on that specific claim if anyone is interested.

For me, there is something about listening to digital sources that I have always found a bit fatiguing compared to analog sources. The better sounding DACs (to me) have been those that forgo what seems like hyper realistic, lit up or ‘technicolor’ presentation for a more fluid or organic sound, that creates less listening fatigue. Can you listen to album after album at room filling volume with both engagement and lack of distress? If yes, give me more of that.

The Chord DACs I have listened to have both incision and musical flow. They generally measure well too. Interesting that the designer of those devices would feel the need to stray so far from sound defensible engineering in his pursuit of the holy upsampling grail. Spending six years working on anything is a labor of love. Perhaps misguided or obsessive love, but love nevertheless.

kn

To me and the other engineers here at the recording studio, cleaning up transient timing does make for a more engrossing as well as less fatiguing listening experience. It gets one a small step closer to the analog experience you point out, which we have when we mix to 30IPS 1/2" which some clients still like to do. The upscaling is most night-and-day noticeable on things like snare drums and high and rack toms, where the "clack" is replaced by a more palpable "thump". Interestingly, some clients actually prefer to monitor without it because the music sounds a little snappier and less smooth. Intermittently bypassing it is actually important in the recording studio setting, since you're mixing for the vast majority of people who listen in less than optimal circumstances.

Whether his new upscaler will bring enough improvement to justify what will certainly be a very high price for most people, who knows? That would be quite a feat, and I'm rather skeptical. But, as anyone sensible would do, until it's out and auditionable, I'll reserve judgment.

Obviously in this subforum, that won't be the case, since the rule is to listen with confirmation bias and not your ears. So you'll never get anything but the same old "everything sounds the same" BS.