Containing less harmonic overall, my main point is not about jitter itself change the sound. Just "less" relative transmitted harmonics to the other device (DAC).
About belief that the square wave is the best , exactly why I ask for details of implementation, and many still thought this is the case , hence I ask for specific details, the norm for some expert, might still bring useful information for many.
So much talking, so little doing. Oh well, at least talk is cheap, so this isn't costing us much.
Talk is cheap, of course it is. 🙂
May i politely ask again for some explanations what the weak arguments of the first Rees/Shaffer article, John Curl has posted, are?
But the square wave of a digital signal is defined by the number of harmonics it contains.
More harmonics, better square wave.
Are you suggesting that the harmonics of the encoded audio are somehow influenced by the digital transmission??
Jan
Never underestimate the impact of language. This misnomer, deliberately chosen and used, although at least some posters know that it is _completely_ incorrect, is implied to work.
And no, it isn´t well understood, if it were there would have been no need to introduce a knew term, as for the "non-sighted" conditions there already exists a well defined term i.e. "blind" .
Quite some people obviously believe that humans could really listen "ears only" and therefore are able to do controlled listening tests "ears only" .
But "ears only" does not exist, that´s the reason why there exists a long list of possible confounders/biases independent from the "blind/sighted" condition.
As said above, if it were a little point, this misnomer wouldn´t have been introduced and used.
Last edited:
Sorry if misunderstood, Marce was talking that squarest square wave is not always best, my point too.
No i don't suggest harmonics of encoded audio influenced by digital transmission.
OK, here is a start.Jakob2 said:
He appears to say that insistence on DBT arises from a belief in Mechanism. He then says that as Mechanism "does not have the status of philosophic truth, logically the DB-or-nothing claim must be rejected". There is faulty logic here.
First he simply asserts that DB arises from Mechanism.
Second he seems to say that as all philosophers do not accept Mechanism, then Mechanism must be false so all claims based on it must be false.
Essentially, his argument appears to be:
You believe in X - which may or may not be true, as some people may say that he has misstated X.
X can only arise from Y - which is surely not necessarily true.
Y is not universally accepted by philosophers and therefore is false - who cares what philosphers think? I certainly don't - I remain unconvinced whether there is really room between physics and theology for philosophy, and even if there is room I believe that most philosophers are so ignorant of both physics and theology that they are very likely to be wrong on many things they say.
I think this is the debating technique known as 'erecting an Aunt Sally'?
He appears to be arguing (but without explicitly saying so) that the sound which people hear does not arise purely from the action of electrical things and electromechanical things (which is what Mechanism would appear to require) but from some other source. Is he advocating Vitalism?
This is on page 1. You can understand why I do not bother to read further.
I would use:
But the square wave of a digital signal is defined by the number of harmonics it contains.
More harmonics, squarer square wave.
🙂
But the square wave of a digital signal is defined by the number of harmonics it contains.
More harmonics, squarer square wave.
🙂
DF posted some clear examples of his tangled logic.
What strikes me most, it that he rejects that idea that listening is good enough. He thinks that being blinded somehow changes what we hear, so much so that it makes the tests invalid.
What strikes me most, it that he rejects that idea that listening is good enough. He thinks that being blinded somehow changes what we hear, so much so that it makes the tests invalid.
And in a most curious way, so that things like data compression, amplitude compression, frequency response, level, localization, polar response, and pitch stability all are readily detectable at extremely low levels with an ears-only test.
It's magic how selective these things are, magic I tells ya.
It's magic how selective these things are, magic I tells ya.
Maybe the vital force which emanates from an amplifier (or is it the speakers? - I'm not sure) enters the human body through the eyes? Clearly, as a non-Mechanist, he believes that there are non-physical effects happening. He can't say this openly, of course, because then modern rational people might ignore him so all he can do is nudge and wink and suggest that 'scientists' do not fully understand audio equipment and its interaction with the human body and psyche.
In a sense that is true; if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a point in DB testing.
In a non-DB situation, what we hear (become aware of) is an amalgam of lots of activity in the brain, a part of which comes from the ear cells firing.
In a DB situation, the ONLY thing the brain has to go on are those ear cells firing. As far as normal perception is concerned, that's a pretty poor sample of reality.
So yes, you 'hear' differently, and it is uncomfortable at first blow because the brain is deprived from (or would that be 'deprived off'?) a lot of usual additional support data.
Jan
Last edited:
Now i know why my grandads old radiogram sounded bad, it was hidden in a sideboard.
It should have been stunning, all valves and vinyl = no digital stress 🙄
It should have been stunning, all valves and vinyl = no digital stress 🙄
- Status
- Not open for further replies.