[Audiophiliac]

Nope, you’re all on your own there. Although, you are posting enough nonsense for 10 people, so there’s that!

Not difficult, 100,000 x 1 sec = 100,000 x 3600 = 27.7 hours. Or are you talking about the math for calculating the timing accuracy of 16/44?

How about the accuracy of 44.1khz playing back 100k guitars playing 1 riff per second, unsynchronized, for 27.7 hours.

You could say that but it would be more nonsense (or just a lie) because sample rates are not the same as frame rates AND, there is no video game that plays 44,100 frames per second.

Framerates are similar. If Bruce Lee was an audiophile, he would be asking for more samples per second. You can't hear that stuff happening like this.
He should have gotten into speed metal, so we can test our gear.

 

[gregorio]

How about the accuracy of 44.1khz playing back 100k guitars playing 1 riff per second, unsynchronized, for 27.7 hours.

The math for the timing accuracy of 16/44 is given and explained here. It’s about 110 pico-secs (110 trillionths of a second) although that’s un-dithered 16/44 and is regardless of the number of guitarists!

Framerates are similar.

No they’re not. Samples are discrete digital samples that have to be converted into a continuous analogue waveform. Frames don’t have to be converted into frames, they’re already frames and they’re not converted into a continuous signal, they’re still frames!

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

The math for the timing accuracy of 16/44 is given and explained here. It’s about 110 pico-secs (110 trillionths of a second) although that’s un-dithered 16/44 and is regardless of the number of guitarists!

Oh, wow, you're giving me a link to a site called troll-audio, that disagrees scientifically with anything people usually think about audio.
You should go there and try telling them something else.

No they’re not. Samples are discrete digital samples that have to be converted into a continuous analogue waveform. Frames don’t have to be converted into frames, they’re already frames and they’re not converted into a continuous signal, they’re still frames!

Samples are only discrete digital samples when they're digital. Fabric samples sound different. Since lcd screens came along, they stay on, until the next frame, and have become continuous, just like audio was doing it.

 

[Audiophiliac]

I left a comment at troll-audio:
This article is good, but there's way more to it than that. There's an article by a guy in Tokyo nobody cares about, who goes into much more detail.
You probably don't even know what clicking on a link really does, though.
Digital is what it really is, any more only makes things worse.

 

[Audiophiliac]

How many are in there, man?
None of us know.

 

[Audiophiliac]

The owner of troll-audio is scientifically debunking that getting digital actually gets chicks.

 

[gregorio]

Oh, wow, you're giving me a link to a site called troll-audio, that disagrees scientifically with anything people usually think about audio.

No it doesn’t, it agrees “scientifically with everything people usually think about audio”, with the exception of misinformed audiophiles.

You should go there and try telling them something else.

Why would I do that, what was stated is correct (although it omits the effect of dithering).

Since lcd screens came along, they stay on, until the next frame, and have become continuous,

It cannot be both, so which is it, do they stay on until the next frame or are they continuously varying?

just like audio was doing it.

No nothing like audio is doing because audio does not stay on until the next frame, there is no next frame, there is only a continuously varying waveform at the output!

This article is good, but there's way more to it than that.

Such as?

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

No it doesn’t, it agrees “scientifically with everything people usually think about audio”, with the exception of misinformed audiophiles.

Why would I do that, what was stated is correct (although it omits the effect of dithering).

Dithering means your changing something from between reading from the storage, and your chip converting it. I want bit-perfect playback, the 'direct file to dac chip' dream that people keep finding new ways of proving you're not getting.

It cannot be both, so which is it, do they stay on until the next frame or are they continuously varying?

Each sample plays a straight line until the next sample, then it stair-steps to another straight line for a while. There shouldn't be straight lines, they are actually curves. It's not possible for digital to avoid stair-steps, and resolution will never completely fix digital's problem.

No nothing like audio is doing because audio does not stay on until the next frame, there is no next frame, there is only a continuously varying waveform at the output!

Such as?

Oh, I think I understand what you're saying. You think your dac chip must be smart enough to know what going on the whole time until the next sample.
That reminds me of that kid who signed up choosing the name bigshot must be thinking. He probably never thinks anyone not into his audio gear gets that.
I wonder what his way it will be is in 2050?

 

[Audiophiliac]

Even if it were possible for resolution to eventually solve the problem, a chip can only ever sound like a chip.
They sit around doing samples all the time.
We need resolution to hide the embarrassment that dac chips are all just a bunch of loudmouths.

 

[gregorio]

Dithering means your changing something from between reading from the storage, and your chip converting it.

No it does not. You just keep making up utter nonsense. Dither is applied when the analogue signal is converted to digital data. Again, arguing from ignorance will NOT win your argument in this subforum!

Each sample plays a straight line until the next sample, then it stair-steps to another straight line for a while. There shouldn't be straight lines, they are actually curves.

There is no stair step, there are no straight lines, they are actually sinusoidal waveforms, which is what DACs output. Instead of arguing from ignorance why don’t you learn some facts first? Try this as an introduction.

It's not possible for digital to avoid stair-steps, and resolution will never completely fix digital's problem.

That’s false as the above link proves!

You think your dac chip must be smart enough to know what going on the whole time until the next sample.

A DAC chip doesn’t need to be very smart because what’s going on between the samples is a sinusoidal waveform that can be calculated and reconstructed. This was proved over 70 years ago, it’s about time you caught up!

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

No it does not. You just keep making up utter nonsense. Dither is applied when the analogue signal is converted to digital data. Again, arguing from ignorance will NOT win your argument in this subforum!

My ignorance can be turned into your own ignorance if you look for a checkbox in Foobar2000 output section. It's playback only software.

There is no stair step, there are no straight lines, they are actually sinusoidal waveforms, which is what DACs output. Instead of arguing from ignorance why don’t you learn some facts first? Try this as an introduction.

That’s false as the above link proves!

A DAC chip doesn’t need to be very smart because what’s going on between the samples is a sinusoidal waveform that can be calculated and reconstructed. This was proved over 70 years ago, it’s about time you caught up!

You haven't gotten to my next post, yet. It sums it up.
What makes you think the chip has ai guiding it, to be able to reconstruct a wave? If it can do that, why is it even bothering with samples?
All it has to work with is samples, it wasn't there.

 

[gregorio]

My ignorance can be turned into your own ignorance if you look for a checkbox in Foobar2000 output section.

Foobar 2000 is software, it’s not a DAC, didn’t you know that? And why do you think that checkbox is there?

You haven't gotten to my next post, yet. It sums it up.

You’re right it does sum it up, it’s complete nonsense! Watch the video and try to understand it. If you don’t understand it then ask but don’t just keep repeating the same nonsense, that’s just trolling!

G

 

[Audiophiliac]

Foobar 2000 is software, it’s not a DAC, didn’t you know that? And why do you think that checkbox is there?

I never said foobar2k was a dac, moron. " It's playback only software."
That means that turning it on will do something different. It will make something different. I don't care about turning on dithering, I'd rather it play direct.
You should be careful about which one of us looks stupid.

You’re right it does sum it up, it’s complete nonsense! Watch the video and try to understand it. If you don’t understand it then ask but don’t just keep repeating the same nonsense, that’s just trolling!

I haven't been saying I don't understand something. That's only ever been your idea.
Unaltered stair steps for me, I guess.
The problem with upsampling must be that the higher the frequency of the soundwaves, the faster they wobble, so the more likely they are supposed to be on the downside by the next sample, could be anywhere, causing it to sound like a chip and noisy.

 

[bigshot]

Apps don't necessarily change audio. A lot of computers play back audio through their built in audio board. It doesn't matter what app is being used, it all goes through the same playback hardware.

One of the misconceptions about digital audio is that everything has an audible effect on the sound. That isn't true. Most modern digital audio equipment and software are audibly transparent... what goes in sounds exactly the same as what comes out.

Dithering affects the depth of the noise floor. It doesn't affect the sound above that at all. You can find a link to a comparison of dithered and undithered audio in the video link in my sig file. It isn't a great deal of difference, especially if you don't listen to your music very loud.

By the way, it's a lot easier to have a conversation with you when you make shorter posts like this one. When you do those long stream of consciousness rants flying all over dozens of different subjects, it's difficult to know where to even start, so it makes me want to just dismiss the whole thing.

 

[71 dB]

Audiophiliac: Staircases are just a way to visualize digital audio. Physically staircase signals are impossible, because they require infinite bandwidth. DACs have reconstruction filters which make the signals completely smooth.