- Debunk “the Monty’s video” regarding Hi-Res
- What’s Hi-Res
Sadly my system isn’t resolving enough so I am happy with 256kbps AAC.
5 Likes
I only use Hi-Res in the car for better MPG.
3 Likes
I’d get someone to edit your English, I’m presuming you’re not a native speaker.
2 Likes
Thanks for your feed back. You are correct. I am not. I hope my English is good enough to express my view.
If you don’t mind, feel free to let me know my mistake and correct my English mistakes. Cheers.
My bottom line is to give out correct information.
Well, even correct spelling and grammar wouldn’t make all your claims right, either.
5 Likes
If this were the case, then why are you using images from another website to convey your claims whilst at the same time misrepresenting that information?
It appears that your objective is to disseminate inaccurate information and bombard this forum with backlinks to your website. Please stop doing this.
5 Likes
Thanks for your feed back.
I do include the link to the source of the graphs. Did I try to hide something from that source? I would say no.
Of course, you may have a different view-point that I have to copy and paste the whole article from the source before we can discuss the graphs. For this, I don’t think it is the practice in any research paper? (BTW, did you read any research paper before?)
Did I make up those graphs? No, as you highlighted above, I used the graphs from the other site (with the source quoted clearly in my blog).
Mind to share with me what is the inaccurate information you are talking about? I hope we are talking facts here. I will correct all the inaccurrate information I provided (if there is any).
Please do feel free to shut me up like ASR. I know too well how Pseudo Science works.
100% agree. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Fact is fact. Pseudo science is pseudo science.
I asked you why you were misrepresenting the information obtained from other websites, and you have not provided a satisfactory explanation. Similarly, you have used images of AC waveforms (not cited), which may be subject to copyright, and erroneously presented them as audio signals.
In a nutshell, the above, and the fact that you have failed to understand that the “steps” are samples and a DAC reconstructs the original waveform precisely. Indeed, the source you misrepresented states that the digital to analogue conversion “… removes the jagged stair step pattern (the samples), restoring the waveform to a near perfect representation of the original analogue signal.” It’s false to say reputable sources are selling fake science when your argument is full of holes.
This forum requests that you only post your original content and, among other things, refrain from engaging in clickbait or megaphoning. Disagreement is fine, too, but endless contrarianism is not acceptable.
To avoid ambiguity, any disciplinary measures the moderators may impose are determined by your conduct and your compliance with the community guidelines, not because we disagree with you.
5 Likes
Here’s one (and as it’s not even technical so I stopped reading at this point):
“Pretty much all modern DACs support the NOS mode now.”
Your responses in this thread are further diminishing your credibility.
Peer review and feedback are cornerstones of science.
If you’re going to be hostile to feedback, or worse patronizing to those offering it, “BTW, did you read any research paper before” you’re not engaging in science, you’re grandstanding.
Point 1: Misrepresenting the information?
Sorry for my ignorance, could you please point out clearly what’s the "*misprepresneting the information" that you referred to? I am showing my own interpretation (with my critical thinking) of the graphs from that web site.
I didn’t say the original article agreed my view point. Did it?
Did I say the original article debunk the misleading part of the “Monty’s vidoe”? No, I didn’t. I was me who debunk the video.
Point 2: not provided a satisfactory explanation?
If my previous replies or Point 1 above does not make it clear. Please allow me to do it one more time here:
I used the graphs from the other article to help me to express my own viewpoints. I have no intention to (and I didn’t) say the other article agreed my viewpoints.
I am using a practice that is happening in peer-reviewed research. A lot of research paper quote someone else’s data to support their own viewpoint even the quoted paper may have a totally different intepretation of the data.
i.e. all these graphs I shown are factual. I just have my viewpoint of my own interpretation of the graphs.
Does it make sense to you now? If you are not sure how formal scientific research is done, I’d suggest you to talk to any one who had submitted any reasearch paper to a journal to publish.
Are you satisfied with the above explanation?
If you are still not satisfied with my explanation, please do let me know. I can explain further to make it even more clear to you.
Point 3: My mistake
Sorry, it was my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out as I forgot to quote the source of the graph and I didn’t specify explicitly that the graph is not from audio signal.
I’d updated my blog as below to fix these mistakes:
i.e.
Added the source for the graph I used.
Made it clear the graph is not from any audio signal.
Thanks again for reviewing my blog and help to make it perfect. I really need something like you to point out any mistake I may have on my blog. Thanks
Point 4: “NOS Mode” in modern DACs
The “NOS mode” (aka “NOS filter”) in a modern DAC is, by designed, to faithfully reconstruct audio signal from the digitized input signal. People just “assume” a well-designed DAC should remove the jagged stair step pattern, which is incorrect.
Some people need “NOS mode” feature provided by a modern DAC.
My blog is to highlight that a modern DAC does support NOS mode, by designed, to help to faithfully reconstruct the digitized input in the analog audio signal space.
Point 5: Perfect representation of the original analogue signal
This is exactly the point I want to highlight when I showed the following graph in my blog:
source: Waveforms of AC voltage and current for cases 1-4. | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
The audio signal re-constructed from a modern DAC for a perfect digitized 10k Hz is not perfect. Do you agree?
The audio output is not noise free. Noise is everywhere in the audio output (it would look similar to the above graph (for AC waveforms) if the noise level in the analogy audio signal is high enough for you to see easily)
Point 6: Reputable source equals factual?
To me, with my critical thinking, a reputable source does not mean all it said are factual.
(By the way, I didn’t say all the contents of the video are incorrect. In fact, I found some parts are quite interesting)
For any pseudo science claim, there must be some “supportive” scientific facts to support the claim otherwise people would spot out the pseudo science claim easily.
In my blog, I want to highlight the following:
-
Most Modern DACs do support NOS mode by designed. With such mode, people could get stair-step analog audio waveform output. <== factual
Do you agree the above is factual?
(note: “most” here mean DACs based on the latest AKM DAC chips, Cirrus Logic DAC chips) -
Pseudo Science Claim: From the “Monty’s video”, it attempts to deliver a message that you don’t have to care as there is “no way” a DAC would have such output <=== not ture.
Do you agree the claim is misleading? -
The audito output for a perfectly digitized sine wave is not a perfect sine wave. <== factual
Do you agree it is factual? -
Pseudo Science Claim: The “Monty’s video” suggested that with 44.1kHz/16 bit digitized input, you would get a perfect sine wave from the audio signal from a DAC <=== not true
Do you agree it is mis-leading?
(It would be my mistake if the video just suggested that the audio output would be something looks like a perfect sine wave)
Point 7: full of holes?
Looks like you didn’t fully understand my blog. After reading all the points above, I hope these points make you clear what’s wrong with the “Monty’s video”.
If you still think my blog is still full of holes, it would be great if you can point them out so that I can fix it (if there is any).
Bottom line: I don’t want to give out any incorrect information on my blog
Point 8: Originality
I believe all the view points on my blog are my own ones after I analyzed all the information I collected with my own critical thinking.
If you considering using others’ graph to draw my own conclusion is not original, then I would have no more words to say regarding “originality”. We just have a different defintions of it.
In that case, I believe I have to create very similar graphs (showing the stair-step waveform with a modern DAC in NOS mode) myself before I can even talk about it. Is it correct from your understading of “originality”?
Point 9: clickbait
Sorry for my ignorance. In my previous posts, I do include links to my blog (which is not for any profit) as I don’t want to copy-and-paste my whole blog here.
If you think that we should not post anything with a link here, I think it is ok as this is a site managed by you and your team. You can manange the site with your own judgement (and that’s the exact reason why I created my own blog instead of using other’s system)
In that case, may I ask, would that be ok if I copy-and-paste my whole article here without any link. Would you consider it is good or you still think it is not appropriate?
Understood.
100% totally agree and respect your and/or your team’s decision. Feel free to take any action with my posts or my account accordingly based on your judgement.
p.s.: I really enjoy discussing with you. Please do let me say thank you again for reviewing my blog and point out its mistakes.
Thanks a lot for your feedback.
DACs based on the modern flagship Cirrus Logic CS43131 or CS43198 chips do support “NOS mode” (aka NOS filtering) (as it is part of the chip’s feature).
source: M300 SE (smsl-audio.com))
Similar for the AKM DAC chips:
source: E30 II - TOPPING (toppingaudio.com)
AKM’s Super Slow Roll-off is the filter that enable the “NOS mode”
source: Topping E30 II user manual
Agreed. That’s what I am doing when I share my blog. I want to make sure that 100% of the facts I stated are factual. Of course, my interpretation / view-points are my personal view.
I’ve no intention to take any feedback (no matter it agrees or disagreeds my viewpoints) as hostile. Please do share your feedback. I’d love to hear all of them, especially the one that can point out my mistake.
Sorry, my bad. I have no such intention. From the feedback provider’s comment, it looks to me that he has a different defintion of “originality” as it is very different from people who know the peer-review research system.
Again, that was not my intention to make people feel unease.
By the way, what do you think? Do you have any question regarding the originality of my blog or how I used others’ graph on my blog?
Feel free to comment and let’s discuss more if you don’t mind.
One more thing, looks like I didn’t make it clear what do I meant by “most DACs”. I just updated my blog to make it better.
Could you check to see if it makes sense to you?
I will attempt to keep this brief. Misrepresentation is when the words or ideas of the original author have been misrepresented. In academia, this is considered misconduct because it is unethical and poor practice. Twisting someone else’s research to further your argument is not an acceptable approach.
This often occurs when you arrive at your conclusion first without doing any research – notice the irony here? I note that nothing you say is backed up by your measurements. Case in point: using the waveform of a kV AC waveform and stating:
To be exact, those “smooth since wave output” may look like perfect sine wave but they are not. If you zoom close enough, you would see some artifacts like the ones shown in the red lines below …
This is made up. You thought your mistake was the omission of a citation, not the appropriation of irrelevant material.
An empty apology, since you did the same thing here and in your reply to me. You mention research, yet your blog is devoid of this. You say that this community is welcome to peer-review your writing, yet you ignored what was said here and in my PM to you.
Ultimately, it is your credibility that is damaged by this approach. If you would like to learn from this community, you are welcome to do so, but to continue to use the forum as a soapbox for your ideas is not acceptable.
1 Like
Question 1:
I have no intention to mis-represent the original writer’s idea. Did I?
Question 2:
I didn’t put my words into his mouth. Did I?
Question 3:
I already quoted the source of these graphs clearly in my blog and gave the link to the source of the complete original article from the original author. Anyone can click on the link to see what the original author would like to say.
Did I use two of his graphs (with fully quoting as above) to express my own view point means mis-representation?
May be I should invite the orignal author to ask him to make a judgement call to see if he has any concern with my blog? If he said he feel that I mis-represent him in my blog, I will remove his graphs immediately.
Question 4
Please don’t just make up something out of thin air. As I said, please check with any of your friends to verify your claim before you made it as it doesn’t make sense at all with your claim.
If you don’t think you just make it up to feel you feel good, would you mind to state any fact to support your view point?
Question 5
Do you really think by feeding a perfectly digitized 10k Hz sine wave to a modern DAC, the DAC would give you a perfect 10k Hz sine wave without any noise in its audio output signal?
If you do, I would suggest you to ask your friend who knows digital audio to verify your answer independently.
Question 6
Accusation without any evidence
The accusation in your very first reply in this thread prompted me to think if you had ever read any research paper.
It is because I can only think of two reasons for your baseless accusation.
Reason 1. You don’t really know the mean of “originality” in the scientific research world. <=== my assumption
Or
Reason 2. You did the baseless accusation because of some other reasons <=== not sure what’s your hidden agenda for this one
I assumed the reason was 1 (unless I am wrong). Therefore, I asked my question “BTW, did you read any research paper before”.
Some of my friends didn’t read any research paper. To me, it is fine. I would not look up or down people who did it or not. (Of course, I would not know how they feel themselves.)
Apology
If you feel you deserve an apology as you feel unease when someone asked you a question “BTW, did you read any research paper before”,
Then what would you feel if someone just accuse you that you did something wrong out of a thin air without any evidence?
PM
Thanks a lot for your PM.
Sorry for my poor communication skills, I don’t know what did I ignore? Could you please educate me about the things that I ignored?