Debunk Pseudo Science Claims

 Objective measurement vs subjective "perceivable" feeling. Who is spreading misinformation? TLDR: Science is based on objective measurement, not subjective "perceivable" feeling. I don't know since when scientist believe in subjective "perceivable" feeling rather than objective measurement.  Today, I came across the following thread that talks about  Flac 16 bit or 24 bit Qobuz | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org One of the posters mentioned there there is a NIH research shows that  High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness - PubMed (nih.gov) Here are the abstract of the research paper: The research clearly shows that the participants could perceive the Hi-Res audio and their brains prove that objectively by having higher power in the alpha-band in the EGG measured when full range signal is present. It is shown as below (for details, please refer to the

Newton 2nd Law and Shannon sampling theorem... TLDR: There are endless discussion / debate on the topic of Hi-Res audio vs CD-quality audio. To me, it is pointless in such discussion as the answer is a no brainer. Why people are still arguing which one is better? CD-quality audio (44.1kHz , 16-bit) is by definition inferior to Hi-Res audio (e.g. 192kHz, 24-bit). In terms of audio quality, there is no way CD-quality audio can be better than Hi-Res. It is a given fact. CD-quality audio is good enough? Some hard-core CD-quality audio supporters would argue that it is good enough for audio reproduction. One of their reasons is that Shannon sampling theorem proves that 44.1kHz is good enough to cover the audio signal with frequency range up to 22kHz. If you attempt to argue with them that Hi-Res is better (even if you really do hear that), those CD-quality audio supporters would say you are tricked by marketing, your brain, confirmation bias effect, etc..... as the science prove that CD-q

 Is there any audibly transparent DAC? Yes or no? TLDR: According to  SMSL SU-10 DAC Review | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum , the above DAC is considered as "audibly transparent" by those "Audio Science" guys.  Amongst all the DACs they measured (as of today, 8 June 2024), its SINAD is ranked the 1st as shown below: Does it really mean such DAC is audibly transparent? Before we can answer the question, let's look at the definition of "audibly transparent" DAC again. What is the definition of audibly transparent in general public? If you ask the general public who has Hi Fi system at home (here we are talking both Audiophiles and non-Audiophiles general public), they would give you something like the following for the definition of audibly transparent: Audiby Transparent is the holy grail they are looking for. If a DAC is audiby transparent, it means it does not introduce any audible sound of its own and reproduces the audio signal faithfully. In oth

Seeing is believeing? Another trick of Pseudo Science: Demo TLDR: Analog or Digital? Magic? Source (at 4:33  D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) (youtube.com)  ) How often you see a "perfect" and "smooth" sine wave on an oscilloscope (as shown above) when someone was attempting to "prove" that CD-quality music can reconstruct the analog output like the original.  To quote the exact phrase, " the analog ouput is still a perfect sine wave exactly like the original " (at 5:04  D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube ) Someone may said, "Yes, that's a perfect sine wave. Everyone can see a smooth sine wave is reconstructed from CD-quality digital input. Don't you see it? I can use an oscilloscope to reproduce the same thing myself to verify it." Hmm.. that's the art of Pseudo Science . They attempt to show "factual evidence" in front of you and tell you t

 Another major characteristics of Pseudo Science: Naming. What is "audibly transparent"? TLDR: Naming   is another   art of Pseudo Science .  A forum named as "audio science review forum" or "sound science forum" doesn't automatically mean its contents / claims are based on objective scientific evidence. Most likely than not, these contents / claims are questionable as they are based on pseudo science " evidences " . Audibly Transparent Let's have a look of the term "audibly transparent". I did try a search ( Search results for query: audibly transparent | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum ) on the term "audibly transparent" on ASR. I found there are a lot of discussions / usage about it: One of the famous thread there is  Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused? | Page 468 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum . It has 468 pages already and keep goi

 Open invitation for Joe Bloggs of HiBy Music for on-line discuss about Hi-Res music and NOS DAC. Looks like Joe Bloggs of HiBy Music is having a limited understanding of Hi-Res music and NOS DAC for playing back Hi-Res music based on my recent discussion with him on Head-Fi.org and it seems that he has his own view about Hi-Res music and NOS DAC. I hereby invite Joe Bloggs openly for joining an on-line discussion about Hi-Res music and NOS DAC so that I can learn more from him about these topics as I am not able to join any on-line discussions on Head-Fi.org meaningfully because they control my free speech there . We can continue our discussion here. Here is what you wrote  and my reply : (note: his comment was related to a thread I created on Head-Fi regarding Hi-Res music) Joe, if you don't feel comfortable (for whatever reasons) in joining the discussion here, please do feel free not to do it as I don't want to push people. (But as I said, if you really want to discuss any

DSD and Nyquist frequency? TLDR: Does the concept of Nyquist frequency can be applied directly to DSD (like what it is applied for PCM)? i.e. using 44kHz sampling rate with DSD sampling is good enough for perfectly reconstructing audio signal with frequency up to 22kHz (i.e. the Nyquist frequecy of 44kHz sampling rate)? Is DSD sampling same as PCM sampling?  I bet people who know the difference between DSD and PCM would know the answers for the above questions are No and No. Why people still talk about Nyquist frequency (i.e. sampling rate / 2) with DSD like below : Why the moderator mentioned sampling rate/2 (i.e. Nyquist frequency) with DSD sampling?  Is the moderator really confused between DSD and PCM sampling? I am not sure but I'd suggest to him please don't give out incorrect infomration (as he carried the role of the so-called "Sound Science Moderator"). Some people (I am not talking about the OP) without (or with only limited) critical thinking would really b

 Is pseudo scientist smart? Hmm.... (You want to be as smart as Tesla or as "Monty"? It's your choice) I think some pseudo scientists are very smart especially the one who created the pseudo science claims. They need to have a good understanding of related subject in order to create convincing pseudo science claims as they have to provide convincing facts while they also need to hide the other parts that would debunk their claims. Mothy's video is a good example . However, for the pseudo science  followers, they just following these pseudo science leaders and blindly believe what these leaders said without a second thought (or without using their critical thinking skill). These followers may be "knowledgeable" but they are defintely not smart. One of the aims of my blog is to make these followers awake. Don't fall into the traps set up by these pseudo science leaders (as they usually have their own agenda in pushing their claims) I really hope that more

One of red flags of Pseudo Science: Double Standards TLDR: Double Standards is not a single indicator to show Pseudo Science but it should help you to put a red flag in your Pseudo Science alert. Is peer-reviewed research important in Audio Science? Have a look of a reply from a " peacekeeper ":  Yes, I agreed peer-reviewed results formed the building stones for modern science. We trust peer-reviewed research more than anything else (for objective scientific analysis).  (BTW, a forum called itself as "Audio Science Review" does not mean they are indeed talking about science. The forum is indeed known as " cult community " to be exact. Naming is another art of Pseudo Science. ) However, the very same " peacekeeper " applied a different standard when he is challenged about not using peer-reviewed system : " A lower level of significance/confidence than a professional or scientific (peer reviewed) result "? What he is talking about? low