Jump to content

Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles


tuga
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

I think there is little point continuing until you are slightly better acquainted with what RW does. There are many of his seminars on YouTube but here is a typical one. In articular Rob Watts is particularly concerned with very accurate timing and the influence that has on how the brain can interpret the sound.

What's Watts' background in neuroscience and has he published any of his research?

It's begining to sound somewhat oily but it could be your wording.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rabski said:

You can't argue with the maths. I certainly don't. What you can (and plenty do) argue with is the suggestion that brickwall filtering everything outside the range of human hearing is fine.

Yes, but that is utter nonsense, assuming a well-implemented filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rabski said:

You can't argue with the maths. I certainly don't. What you can (and plenty do) argue with is the suggestion that brickwall filtering everything outside the range of human hearing is fine.

Don't you mean inside?

In any case there is no perfect filter so the best thing would be to filter higher up, further from the human threshold of audibility, to avoid any audible effects.

If Redbook were 88.2kHz or even 48kHz maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tuga said:

What's Watts' background in neuroscience and has he published any of his research?

It's begining to sound somewhat oily but it could be your wording.

I'm a retired consultant physician. RW's assessment of how our hearing works, and how "it's not understood", is untrue. That's in the first few minutes!

His entire argument is based on a series of fallacies, which he is presenting as facts to a "non-technical audience".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
3 minutes ago, Blzebub said:

Yes, but that is utter nonsense, assuming a well-implemented filter.

Why?

I believe that the inherent suggestion is flawed. Human hearing only extends to 20kHz or so. Therefore filter everything above 22kHz for a sample rate of 44.1 and all in the garden is rosy. I contend that what goes on above 22kHz remains important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rabski said:

I contend that what goes on above 22kHz remains important.

Prove that, and you'll not only get a paper published in Nature, but maybe a Nobel Prize as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Blzebub said:

I think there is little point continuing until you are slightly better acquainted with sampling theory. Did you watch the "digital show and tell" I posted upthread? It explains the fallacy being peddled by the Hi-Res merchants.

I have actually lost track of what point you are making apart from a vague suspicion that you seem to be saying Rob Watts doesn’t understand the theory of digital sampling. Whatever standpoint you have that is a barely credible proposition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Just now, Blzebub said:

Prove that, and you'll not only get a paper published in Nature, but maybe a Nobel Prize as well!

I said 'contend'. Nevertheless, there are certainly harmonics and interactions of harmonics in normal music extending well beyond the 20kHz limit.

As most people here know well, I don't do bull and as my background is pure science, I don't do bull based on misused science either. However, I'm not a fool and I've seen plenty of things in my own field that people described as 'impossible' only a few decades ago.

As a fundamental principle, I am very wary of the thinking based on the suggestion that if you can't see it or hear it, then it doesn't matter.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fourlegs said:

I have actually lost track of what point you are making apart from a vague suspicion that you seem to be saying Rob Watts doesn’t understand the theory of digital sampling. Whatever standpoint you have that is a barely credible proposition. 

Watch the "digital show and tell" YT video before one of us dies!

BTW, your "argument from authority" is fallacious. It doesn't matter who your source is if he's wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rabski said:

I said 'contend'. Nevertheless, there are certainly harmonics and interactions of harmonics in normal music extending well beyond the 20kHz limit.

As most people here know well, I don't do bull and as my background is pure science, I don't do bull based on misused science either. However, I'm not a fool and I've seen plenty of things in my own field that people described as 'impossible' only a few decades ago.

As a fundamental principle, I am very wary of the thinking based on the suggestion that if you can't see it or hear it, then it doesn't matter.

We use ultrasound in medicine. It's inaudible.

You seem like a sensible person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blzebub said:

Watch the "digital show and tell" YT video before one of us dies!

BTW, your "argument from authority" is fallacious. It doesn't matter who your source is if he's wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Of course you demanding that we watch the above video is not ‘arguing from authority’, unlike other people suggesting that we watch a Rob Watts video which apparently *is* ‘arguing from authority’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rdale said:

Of course you demanding that we watch the above video is not ‘arguing from authority’, unlike other people suggesting that we watch a Rob Watts video which apparently *is* ‘arguing from authority’.

No it isn't, because he demonstrates it all on camera. The equipment he's using can't have a bias, and nor can it be "wrong" (unless it's broken).

RW, OTOH, is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated (and incorrect) claims without showing any evidence whatsoever.

Edited by Blzebub
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made it through the first 10 minutes of RW's spiel. It's snake-oil, IMO. Listening tests are notoriously unreliable, for starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...