Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback  (Read 135058 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1025
Hey I can do the 'Amir' too!

Next time someone tells me 'Amir thinks hi rez is a good thing' I'll write:


No, what he pointed out was this
Quote
The difference in specification alone has very small incremental fidelity difference.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1026
So no, when you all start to show some interest in actual data as opposed to searching high and low for your future talking points to dismiss these results, I will join you.  For now you can pursue the witch-hunt yourself.


There is no witch hunt, just growing impatience with irrelevant interjections and obfuscation.



Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1027
Lot of good it did me the last time I shared personal data related to this conversation. You guys are not interested in such data.

Nobody is asking you for stories about how your wife told you how to program the lights at your house, your business flights, your preferred car type or how you fill out questionnaires.

You said all that is needed is a matlab line and the parameters given.
You also wrote:
There is no requirement for any schmuck to be able to reproduce a scientific experiment.  The requirement is for others schooled in the art.  Not lay people pretending to understand the topic.


Instead of admitting that you're that "schmuck" and that lay person, you dance around, turn things around by requesting others to give you data ...
Typical case of zero amir credibility.


You xnor, have refused to run all tests on moral grounds.

This isn't about me, or any of the other names you dropped.
I actually have run many tests, even posted a log in here which was completely off-topic. Typical amir lies guys, see amir credibility.


So no, when you all start to show some interest in actual data as opposed to searching high and low for your future talking points to dismiss these results, I will join you.  For now you can pursue the witch-hunt yourself.

You gotta take responsibility for the asinine nonsense you post here regularly, instead of foisting it off on others.


"Don't know the exact filter parameters..." Are you kidding me?

No, just post the matlab line(s) that produce the same filter.

It could be as easy and simple as that, but you seem to turn everything into these painful back and forths with lots of dancing around, excuses and blaming others. You seem to have been doing this for too many years to be able to participate like a normal human being in a discussion.


No, what he pointed out was this:

His harsh response to my mistake doesn't change the problem at all:
"But that still makes the whole paper kinda irrelevant to how such files will sound with a real-world DAC, DACs with apodizing filters, players with resamplers with arbitrarily configurable filters ...

As I said before, the A/D or mastering filter can be extremely steep. Normally it will run through at least another filter which usually dominates how an impulse will finally look like."


Why don't you for once just address what was said, and not who said it how and what the person posted before (sometimes even on other forums) ... ?
"I hear it when I see it."

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1028
This is clearly a hopeless case.


More specifically, it is a matter of "He doesn't fit" with regard to the matter of agreeing to TOS8.

Quote
Let me close the chapter "amirm" (all based on evidence found in this thread):

- stereotyping people, which he even admitted to


The most dramatic example of this being the matter of his attempts to stereotype himself as being a science-abiding objectivist, which totally fails any sniff test. It might work except for his own efforts at defeating himself.

Quote
- keeps on making straw men and red herrings among countless other fallacies


Good example being our recent attempts to square his subjectivist, bad science, golden-eared articles on his for-profit commercial web site with his claims to be a science-loving objectivist. You can't have it both ways, Amir!

Quote
- keeps shifting the burden of proof but doesn't even notice it


I disagree. His response to my sequence of repetitions of the question: "Amir, please confirm that you actually understand the irrelevancy of the above comments to our discussion of your proud flaunting of bogus sighted evaluations of power amplifiers." is "I won't confirm anything" which asks even begs for the interpretation that he notices his dishonest arguments, makes them consciously, and is even proud of them.

Quote
- sets up flawed arguments where he either wins or wins (that is all he seems to care about anyway)


I think that's the whole point. Winning is his prime directive but he can't win any fair contest so he tries to set up these bogus contests that he can't lose no matter how poorly he plays.

Quote
- dares to speak about logic and science when he has demonstrated (dare I say it) willful ignorance


I think the phrase "Willful ignorance" may be an oxymoron. You can't will away things you can easily remember. 

I agree with what I perceive to be the meaning of your statement, even though I dispute the logic of the phrase.  The facts clearly support the common meaning of that phrase. It is not clear to me that Amir has the technical knowledge, as well as language and logic skills required to play the audio debate game well. Therefore, the ignorant false claims aren't willful. He can't help himself because he lacks the language skills required to read and comprehend correctly. He can't help himself because he lacks the technical background to critically examine many technical claims, whether his own or others. He can't help himself because in ordinary circumstances he can and will avoid taking responsibility for his own statements and their logical consequence.

Quote
- thinks this is a war


More specifically total, no-holds-barred war. Any false claim no matter how ridiculous can be proffered. Any irrelevant fact or theory can be trotted out. Compromising his personal integrity to the point of extinction seems to be OK with him.

Quote
- admitted to not hearing differences but still magically produces ABX logs
- rather posts multiple pages of nonsense than answering simple questions, one of which he finally explicitly evaded with a lame excuse
- poor reading comprehension (fun fact: I am from Australia according to him)
- even defends fallacies (!)
... and loads of other nonsense.


By now, and this is probably the worst, I think that most if not everyone here can see that "he has no interest in intellectual honesty or scientific rigor".

Quote
I take the paper for what it is. amir on the other hand blindly accepts whatever fits his agenda. Amir, do you know that there are peer-reviewed papers for homeopathy, and actually quite a bit more than just 1 paper, but the scientific consensus is still: nonsense, quackery, a sham?

If you had any intellectual honesty, you would have to admit to believe in all kinds of nonsense based on some peer-reviewed papers.


More the point we have his own writings proudly posted on his corporate web site which are far more flawed than the most if not all of the writings of our favorite Golden Eared Clowns like Harley and his old boss.

Quote
This all boils down to: no credibility, no honesty, no interest in truth. I will simply link back to this post whenever it fits, and trust me, this will be every other post if he continues like that.
I am sorry that it came to that.


I might quibble with some of the small details but the basic thrust of your comments are just fine with me. It is how things are and it is nothing that we are going to change or even nudge.

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1029
His harsh response to my mistake doesn't change the problem at all:

It doesn't change the problem.  That is true.  But he is saying you don't know which end is up:

The paper is about simulating real-world anti-imaging filters, not resampling filters.

This beggars belief. Please go back and re-read the paper's abstract. Do you actually understand anything of this?

Instead of constantly posting 12-part responses, getting emotional in each one of them, and making up yet another challenge for me to pass, reflect a bit on the statement above.  Let the more knowledgeable people carry the torch.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1030
Let the more knowledgeable people carry the torch.

And the cash to the bank selling $50k $cam-amps, $cam DACs and the Hi-Re$ scam. IOW, people who know the busine$$ side of these issues.
Hey Amir, good luck with your $5 square bottle Fiji water MQA distribution, which is what this contrived dither doctored BS paper is all about. I'm sure Madrona will carry this hardware eventually, like the Berkley etc, to compliment the $50k $cam-amps.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Audibility of "typical" Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback

Reply #1031
I think it was well established in this thread that the authors of this paper (intentionally?) used inappropriate practices to push Meridian's agenda to sell expensive gear and their new format MQA.

This is it, please find a new playground for trolling and feeding. This thread will close as per ToS #5 and ToS #2. If I see any of you engaging in further silly verbal fisticuffs appropriate administrative action will be taken. This affects all of the involved, and we will try to make sure that neither of you will not be able to derail any more topics.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2021