[castleofargh]

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)

It was a warning, I will not allow you to restart your manipulative game with the same BS strawmaning, misquoting, cherry-picking you did in the thread I closed. The old thread has several blatant examples of your dishonesty, reinforced by even more blatant manipulation in reaction to people pointing out and explaining all the things you got wrong or falsely presented on purpose.
As a modo, I warn you again. I'm not handling you like any other member, that ship has long sailed. For now, I leave your play on trying to convince people that what's important in a band limited signal is to have it look like it isn't. Even though that is only achieved by having a lot of out of band crap that wasn't on the record, and your main strawman was about defending hires. But why would a paradox stop you at this point? You've done so much worse already.
We already explained all that with the impulse response, with the oscilloscope screenshots, now you argue the exact same BS with square waves, another signal with infinite bandwidth . You pretend to have Alzheimer for anything that doesn't support your fake controversies, it's puerile. I do not understand what your aim is, what your motivation is, but I see your actions and I warn you about them, as I should.

When checking what you say,

Honesty is hardly ever heard
And mostly what I need from you

...


All I want is someone, to belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve.





For everyone else, I'd love to see a stop to the constant personal attacks. If that's all you have to say, don't post.

 

[bigshot]

If jerks like this are allowed to dominate the forum and we don’t reply, there will be no useful posts at all. I value this forum. I’ve been here for a long time. I don’t want to see it crapped up. Every time stuff like this is allowed to continue, valuable posters walk away, because it isn’t worth the hassle for them. The frustration makes us snap at each other. I’m more than ready to see the number of strikes to run out and have these guys go poof. I’ll gladly participate constructively when things are cleaned up, but that isn’t possible when these guys are strutting around and using up all the oxygen.

 

[Somafunk]

If this was a pub then the offender would be sparked out, dragged outside and barred.

 

[sunjam]

It was a warning, I will not allow you to restart your manipulative game with the same BS strawmaning, misquoting, cherry-picking you did in the thread I closed. The old thread has several blatant examples of your dishonesty, reinforced by even more blatant manipulation in reaction to people pointing out and explaining all the things you got wrong or falsely presented on purpose.
As a modo, I warn you again. I'm not handling you like any other member, that ship has long sailed. For now, I leave your play on trying to convince people that what's important in a band limited signal is to have it look like it isn't. Even though that is only achieved by having a lot of out of band crap that wasn't on the record, and your main strawman was about defending hires. But why would a paradox stop you at this point? You've done so much worse already.
We already explained all that with the impulse response, with the oscilloscope screenshots, now you argue the exact same BS with square waves, another signal with infinite bandwidth . You pretend to have Alzheimer for anything that doesn't support your fake controversies, it's puerile. I do not understand what your aim is, what your motivation is, but I see your actions and I warn you about them, as I should.

When checking what you say,

...


All I want is someone, to belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve.





For everyone else, I'd love to see a stop to the constant personal attacks. If that's all you have to say, don't post.

Manipulative Game?

Thanks for your comment. I am puzzled about the "manipulative game" that you mentioned.

I did my best to answer all the questions people asked me. How people interpret my replies are their own judgement. I am curious what "manipulative game" in your mind I was playing?

Aim and motivation

"I do not understand what your aim is, what your motivation is" <== For this, I think I stated very clearly on my other thread already, i.e.

Aim: provide / share / exchange correct knowledge, foster critical thinking, debunk pseudo science claim related to audio science
For me personally: learn from people regarding audio science, learn from people who can highlight the things I cannot see,

Motivation: I saw many pseudo science claims in audio science related forums. These claims are supported by many experience members. People are mis-led into believeing these claims without (or with limited) critical thinking

I agreed with the following point you mentioned:

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.

I bet you should see that I spent a lot of efforts in doing so. My freinds keep asking me to leave these pseudo claims alone but I really do feel the responsibility to do so as I don't feel comfortable to see people mis-led into believeing these claims. "With great power comes great responsibility". I see many people has great power but they are probably too busy in taking their respnsibilities.

Can we just have a meaningful and healthy discussion?

Square Wave? Band limited?

ok, let's go back to sqaure wave. do you think the following is a bandlimited signal?

Yes? No? Maybe?

Have a look of the following:

Do you know what I just shown above?

If not, have a look of the following:

The above graph show a band limited 100 Hz "square wave". Of course, it is not a perfect sqaure wave but it is good enough for a lot of analysis.

People can hear different waveform on this site

Delete post without any notification

I just noticed some of my previous posts were removed, e.g. https://www.head-fi.org/goto/post?id=18141145

I can still see the deleted message in the quoted message below:

I think there are rules for moderator regarding message deletion. The following are some of the rules for moderation:

I was not notified about the deleted posts via any channel. Given the moderator can have the power to do whatever he likes in his sole discretion, and this rule is "in most cases", I would believe that either this case is just outside the "in most cases" or the moderator just purely forgot to do it. Anyway, I know now some of my messages were deleted for no reason.

 

[bigshot]

You’ve posted this nonsense before and we explained why it’s nonsense. Sit down and shut up. Better yet, go away.

 

[knownothing2]

Sorry for starting all this. I could have guessed that there would be some criticism on this sub-forum of Watts’ new device and his talking points, but I was looking for a deeper technical dive into how his device, and significant upsampling in general, might improve digital reproduction. Maybe this was thoroughly ran through here when the M-Scaler was introduced or in some other context or discussion. I will search the site for that.

I now notice there is another thread on Head Fi on the Chord Quartet scaler, but Watts and the device are receiving an entirely different reception there. Very little in the way of technical discussion there.

kn

 

[theveterans]

Target audience in the Quartet thread are obviously audiophile subjectivists without much interest in digital sampling theory other than more taps = better sound so discussion about technical aspect of the WTA filter is almost nonexistent

 

[theveterans]

WTA filter with 32-bit float of dynamic range goes down to -300dBFS of filtering at Nyquist per Rob Watts and his claim is that people can still hear transients that differs from a typical DAC filter that goes down 120dB level of attenuation and a more gentle slope than his brickwall sinc WTA filter

 

[sunjam]

You’ve posted this nonsense before and we explained why it’s nonsense. Sit down and shut up. Better yet, go away.

No, I didn't post the mathematical representation of square wave before.

Why you said it's nonsense? Which part of the post is nonsense? All?

Could we have a constructive discussion regarding the "square wave" I posted?

i.e.

Is this band limited 100Hz "square wave" nonsense to you? If you need more explanation about it, I could help.

p.s.: Thanks for your suggestion and I enjoy my stay. You are welcome to stay and join the meaningful, healthy, and constructive scientific discussions here.

 

[sunjam]

Sorry for starting all this. I could have guessed that there would be some criticism on this sub-forum of Watts’ new device and his talking points, but I was looking for a deeper technical dive into how his device, and significant upsampling in general, might improve digital reproduction. Maybe this was thoroughly ran through here when the M-Scaler was introduced or in some other context or discussion. I will search the site for that.

I now notice there is another thread on Head Fi on the Chord Quartet scaler, but Watts and the device are receiving an entirely different reception there. Very little in the way of technical discussion there.

kn

Not sure if you read this before:

The-theory-behind-M-Scaler-technology.pdf (chordelectronics.co.uk)

It's from Chord's official web site.

 

[danadam]

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.

I generated this impulse at 352.8 kHz:

The left channel is delayed by 1 sample (2.8 µs). I converted the file to 16/44k:

I played the 16/44k file on Lenovo T480s through its on-board card (ALC257) and captured with RME ADI-2 Pro FS R BE at 705.2 kHz sampling rate:

The delay was preserved. I don't see what needs correcting here.

 

[sunjam]

It is interesting to see that the term "Monty Montgomery" became a pronouns for a group of people who don't understand the concept of Rob Watt's upsampler.

(source: The-theory-behind-M-Scaler-technology.pdf (chordelectronics.co.uk))

 

[gregorio]

Sorry for starting all this.

Not your fault, you weren’t to know that you picked a specific area of digital audio which is currently a hot marketing point for snake oil products and will therefore attract audiophile trolls with a vested interest, who pretend to be engineers or combating pseudoscience while doing the exact opposite.

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?

No, it’s identical. Upsampling isn’t a new thing, some of the first generation of CD players back in 1984 were upsampling. The trolls typically ignore the fact that upsampling and downsampling is a required part of music recording, mixing and mastering. In fact typically, the commercial recordings you’re listening to have been upsampled and downsampled again numerous times throughout the process, sometimes several dozen times. If, as has been falsely claimed, upsampling is “night and day noticeable”, then several dozen upsampling and downsampling cycles should make the recording utterly unrecognisable but obviously that is not the case, as any real engineer would know!

Could we have a constructive discussion regarding the "square wave" I posted?

Of course not, how is that even a sensible question? The thread you started was closed down precisely because you refused to have a “constructive discussion” regarding various points, including square waves. You just lied, cherry-picked, misrepresented and misquoted what was stated instead, which of course completely precludes any possibility of a “constructive discussion”! How is that not obvious?

If you need more explanation about it, I could help.

How exactly do you think that you presenting more BS and pseudoscience in a science discussion forum is a “help”?

It is interesting to see that the term "Monty Montgomery" became a pronouns for a group of people who don't understand the concept of Rob Watt's upsampler.

I can only assume that your incessant trolling is a deliberate attempt to get yourself banned, seeing as castleofargh has already warned you several times. Presumably so you can play the victim again and claim how you were banned for some unknown reason.

G

 

[bigshot]

Sunjam cuts and pastes the same stuff over and over to make it look like he’s participating in a discussion.

 

[sunjam]

I generated this impulse at 352.8 kHz:



The left channel is delayed by 1 sample (2.8 µs). I converted the file to 16/44k:



I played the 16/44k file on Lenovo T480s through its on-board card (ALC257) and captured with RME ADI-2 Pro FS R BE at 705.2 kHz sampling rate:



The delay was preserved. I don't see what needs correcting here.

Cool, thanks for the graph. I love to see this high quality reply. Thanks again.

For your impulse (i.e. input), looks to me it is a single frequency with decreasing amplitude.

Is it possible to use a band-limited 100 Hz "square wave" that shown earlier in my reply as input?