[jcx]

quick reader? actually understood all the references, terminology, math in the paper?  - there's a lot the willing learner could find with keywords in my posts that could lead to good references
 
as I said few are interested in adversarial debate as a teaching tool for engineering science and technology basics

 

[22906]

Next

 

[limpidglitch]

I find Arun's argumentation technique quite ingenious.
 
"You don't convince me, therefore I'm right"
"I'm right, therefore you don't convince me"
 
You can't lose! Genius!

 

[castleofargh]

I'll just go with the idea that m3_ created at least one of those new accounts to talk to himself.
 

 

[22906]

  I find Arun's argumentation technique quite ingenious.
 
"You don't convince me, therefore I'm right"
"I'm right, therefore you don't convince me"
 
You can't lose! Genius!

Thank you; however, that's not what I'm doing. My technique is simply to propose a theory that can't be disproven. That is the definition of scientific truth.

 

[limpidglitch]

  Thank you; however, that's not what I'm doing. My technique is simply to propose a theory that can't be disproven. That is the definition of scientific truth.

 
I think you'll have to re-read your Popper there, son.

 

[22906]

   
I think you'll have to re-read your Popper there, son.

Maybe we can read it together, father.

 

[limpidglitch]

Not necessary. You're a quick reader, we know that.

 

[22906]

Next

 

[limpidglitch]

What, no quip retort, no premature accusation of ad hominem, no demand for others to disprove your hypothesis?
You're a queer sort, Arun. Ever thought about entering politics?

 

[22906]

Next

 

[cjl]

  Thank you; however, that's not what I'm doing. My technique is simply to propose a theory that can't be disproven. That is the definition of scientific truth.

No, something which cannot be disproven is scientifically useless.

 

[22906]

You're right. Let me rephrase: a theory that has not yet been disproven.

 

[Ra97oR]

Does anyone have measurements of NOS Non-oversampling DACs. So many claims on that they are "smoother and less digital" sounding, It might be due to the sharper AA LPF cutting off the treble earlier than a oversampling modern DAC with a slow roll off LPF, most likely not places as low as the NOS DAC either.

 

[Sapientiam]

Most NOS DACs don't have an AAF (strictly speaking its an AIF) at all or only a 1st order one. Whereas all oversampling S-D DACs do, in the digital domain at the least.
 
I have a hypothesis which I'm testing, that's that NOS DACs sound more analogue-like due to lower noise modulation than S-D types. When I added a sharp AIF to my NOS DAC, the noisefloor (subjectively) dropped considerably, resulting in an almost holographic soundstage. This sold me on steep AIFs but its an on-going experiment to answer the question 'how steep should they be?'.