[bigshot]

google

 

[Ghoostknight]

Yes?
Studies have found that exposure to high intensity ultrasound at frequencies from 700 kHz to 3.6 MHz can cause lung and intestinal damage in mice. Heart rate patterns following vibroacoustic stimulation has resulted in serious negative consequences such as atrial flutter and bradycardia.[15][16]

"headaches and nausea." might be your least concern

Edit: also i didnt knew about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

 

[gregorio]

1. NOS DAC typically do not have a reconstruction filter?
No, they have analog filter. Did you have a chance to look at vintage NOS DAC? Do they ALL broken?
Even modern DAC have the analogy filter (in addition to the digital filter).

Yes, I’ve had “a chance to look at vintage NOS DAC”, “no” they did not have an analogue filter and “yes” they were ALL broken! I tested a NOS DAC about a dozen or so years ago but I’m not sure when the first consumer NOS DACs (and therefore “vintage” NOS DACs) were released, I’m assuming somewhere around 20 years ago? The first consumer digital audio devices (around 1984) were not DACs, they were CD players, which of course contained Digital to Analogue Converters. Some of those early CD players used oversampling (models by Philips) and some didn’t (Sony models) but ALL had reconstruction filters and were not deliberately broken. By the end of the 1980’s pretty much all CD players used oversampling and as far as I’m aware (though I could be wrong) when the first consumer DACs became available (in the 1990’s) they were also oversampling. Filterless NOS DACs came along later, were purely an audiophile marketing gimmick (as I already mentioned) and were ALL broken.

2. Many modern DACs support NOS mode (via NOS filter). All the flag ship Cirrus Logic chips and AKM chips support the NOS filter at the chip level.

That is NOT true! Some audiophile DACs support NOS mode but that’s it, professional/studio DACs do not and of the 10 billion or so digital to analogue converters (stand alone or embedded) in use around the world, probably less than 0.001% of them support a NOS mode and fewer still are actually operated in that mode. How is less than 0.001% “many”?

3. Real NOS DAC (not using NOS emulation are getting more and more popular now). People are looking for these real NOS DAC to support the way how they play music.

That also is not true! Those audiophiles not suckered by the snake oil marketing are definitely NOT looking “for these real NOS DACs” and neither are audio professionals, because “the way how they play music” is as high-fidelity as practical, which precludes using a NOS DAC. In addition, the vast majority of the public probably don’t even know what a NOS DAC is or that they exist. So people in general are NOT “looking for these real NOS DACs”, in fact almost no one is. The only exception is a small part of the already tiny/niche audiophile market, those who’ve swallowed the audiophile marketing BS.

4. Without the relevant knowledge, a lot of things would be considered as mystery. NOS DAC is a perfect example. Why people want NOS DAC in 2024? It is because they use the NOS DAC to playback 768k Hz or even higher bitrate (1536k Hz) music.

Some “people want NOS DAC in 2024” for the same reason they’ve always wanted a NOS DAC, because they’ve been suckered by snake oil marketing. There is no “mystery” and there never has been, snake oil marketing goes back to err … “Snake Oil”, a product falsely marketed over a century ago! Hopefully you now have “the relevant knowledge”?

With my explanation, I hope it can give you a better view of the NOS DACs. Or you still consider NOS DACs are broken?

As your explanation was largely untrue and appears to echo audiophile snake oil marketing, it has given me “a better view of the NOS DACs” because it’s further confirmed what I already knew. So of course I still “consider NOS DACs are broken”, because they are broken and you’ve provided no rational reason why I shouldn’t.

The benefits of high res are apparently in the way the brain processes the info after several minutes of listening, not in switching back and forth between formats and suddenly hearing something.

What “benefits of high res”? Under certain conditions high res has been shown to affect certain brain waves but as it’s completely subconscious; it cannot be heard, sensed or differentiated, what exactly are these “benefits”?

The paper to which you linked did not demonstrate that high res had any affect at all “in the way the brain processes info”. After several minutes alpha brain waves were affected but that does not indicate that “the way the brain processes info” was affected. Did you read Nittono’s later paper on the subject published in Nature in 2020 (link here), which specifically demonstrated that high res is not even detected in the auditory cortex, let alone affects the way the brain processes auditory content/info??

G

 

[eq1849]

What “benefits of high res”? Under certain conditions high res has been shown to affect certain brain waves but as it’s completely subconscious; it cannot be heard, sensed or differentiated, what exactly are these “benefits”?

The paper to which you linked did not demonstrate that high res had any affect at all “in the way the brain processes info”. After several minutes alpha brain waves were affected but that does not indicate that “the way the brain processes info” was affected. Did you read Nittono’s later paper on the subject published in Nature in 2020 (link here), which specifically demonstrated that high res is not even detected in the auditory cortex, let alone affects the way the brain processes auditory content/info??

G

It seems to me the paper may be testing HF sounds, not high res audio.

of course, the two are not one and the same.

High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory​

Hiroshi Nittono. Sci Rep. 2020.

Abstract​

High-resolution digital audio is believed to produce a better listening experience than the standard quality audio, such as compact disks (CDs) and digital versatile disks (DVDs). One common belief is that high-resolution digital audio is superior due to the higher frequency (> 22 kHz) of its sound components, a characteristic unique to this audio. This study examined whether sounds with high-frequency components were processed differently from similar sounds without these components in the auditory cortex. Mismatch negativity (MMN), an electrocortical index of auditory deviance detection in sensory memory, was recorded in young adults with normal hearing (N = 38) using two types of white noise bursts: original sound and digitally filtered sound from which high-frequency components were removed. The two sounds did not produce any MMN response and could not be discriminated behaviourally. In conclusion, even if high-resolution audio is superior to the standard format, the difference is apparently not detectable at the cortical level.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33303915/

 

[bigshot]

There’s no evidence that super audible frequencies add anything to recorded music. Most musical instruments don’t even produce those frequencies and the small amount that music does contain is masked by lower octaves.

 

[sunjam]

Here, specifically, we were talking about the NOS DAC without a filter...
Old NOS DACs used analog filters.
Filterless NOS DAC is the new BS...

Hmm... who is talking about NOS DAC without a filter?

 

[sunjam]

For clarity that is your blog yes ?

Yes, that's my blog.

 

[bigshot]

NOS DACs are obsolete technology with inferior performance compared to modern DACs.

 

[sunjam]

NOS DACs are obsolete technology with inferior performance compared to modern DACs.

Many modern DACs (based on AKM, Cirrus Logic chips) do support the NOS Mode (via NOS filter emulation).

More info: https://community.roonlabs.com/t/so...-friends-who-think-hires-is-useless/272054/20

 

[gregorio]

Hmm... who is talking about NOS DAC without a filter?

You are, you are the one posting about “real NOS DACs” which don’t have a filter and posting the results on you blog of another DAC that emulates a filterless NOS DAC!

How is it possible that don’t you know what you yourself are posting? And if you really didn’t realise that, then you’ve demonstrated the opposite of what you claimed (“critical thinking and a good learning technique”)!

G

 

[sunjam]

You are, you are the one posting about “real NOS DACs” which don’t have a filter and posting the results on you blog of another DAC that emulates a filterless NOS DAC!

How is it possible that don’t you know what you yourself are posting? And if you really didn’t realise that, then you’ve demonstrated the opposite of what you claimed (“critical thinking and a good learning technique”)!

G

Are you talking about the following graphs?

(source: How to pick the best filter setting for your DAC – Addicted To Audio)

The above two graphs are the analog output of Topping E30 (with "NOS" mode enabled).
i.e. these two graphs are from a modern DAC (AKM 4493) with analog filter.

The first one is for a perfect 1kHz digital sine wave input
The second one is for a perfect 10kHz digital sine wave input

What's your understanding from the "Monty's video"?

Are you surprised?

BTW, did you NOT get the same understanding from my blog about the graphs? I thought I stated it clearly. Please let me know if it is not the case. Thanks.

 

[gregorio]

The above two graphs are the analog output of Topping E30 (with "NOS" mode enabled).
i.e. these two graphs are from a modern DAC (AKM 4493) with analog filter.

Are you surprised?

How on earth can I be surprised when I already stated that in the post to which you’re replying?!

I stated: “and posting the results on you blog of another DAC that emulates a filterless NOS DAC!” - And your response is to “post the results on your blog of another DAC that emulates a filterless NOS DAC”. You don’t seem to realise that it’s possible to design a filter that emulates a filterless NOS DAC. That is NOT the application of either a good learning technique or critical thinking!!

G

 

[sander99]

The above two graphs are the analog output of Topping E30 (with "NOS" mode enabled).
i.e. these two graphs are from a modern DAC (AKM 4493) with analog filter.

Are you surprised?

The first one is for a perfect 1kHz digital sine wave input
The second one is for a perfect 10kHz digital sine wave input

What's your understanding from the "Monty's video"?

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.

Anyway, effectively what you have done is measured some incorrect configuration and from that conclude that something is wrong with the mathematically proven theory that digital audio is based upon.

 

[sunjam]

You are, you are the one posting about “real NOS DACs” which don’t have a filter and posting the results on you blog of another DAC that emulates a filterless NOS DAC!

Hmm.... if you were not surprised, then I am surprised why you stated the above. Did I (or you) miss anything?

If you don't mind, could you please let me know what results you are referring to? Thanks.

 

[theveterans]

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.

Anyway, effectively what you have done is measured some incorrect configuration and from that conclude that something is wrong with the mathematically proven theory that digital audio is based upon.

You send an illegal signal (i.e. a dirac delta signal) by using FFT and you get that stair-step response without a digital filter (or a simulated NOS filter)