Is 1.001 same as 1.000 to you? Do they sound the same? Let's find out who you are...

Is 1.001 same as 1.000 to you? Do they sound the same? Let's find out who you are...




There are tons of aguments about 'you should hear the same' and 'I do hear difference' on Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum between many comparable subjects.

For example,

1. Between "audibly transparent" DACs,


2. Between "Hi-Res music" and CD source,



...

This blog is NOT going to argue if there are some DACs sounds better even if they are "audibly transparent". Let's leave it next time.

This time, I would like to focus on the keyword here "SAME".

What do you mean by the "same"???

I believe that it is extremely simple (like 1+1=2), e.g. 

1.000 is same as 1.000 (I think there is no disgreement on this)

To me, it is pretty clear to me that there is no question asked too that 1.001 is not the same as 1.000 

Do you share the same view? I thought all the people would share the same view but.... to be honest,  I am not sure now after joining a few discussions on ASR...

Here is a tough question:

Question 1: "Do you see 1.00000000000001 same as 1.00000000000000???"

Are there something can be considered as "the same but different"? Hmm... how often we hear people say A and B are the same but different in Blah... Blah.....

You may say, "Man, I am totally confused. Are you mentally blocked?"

I hope I am not as I believe that's exactly how Science can help.

Science is a rigorous subject. There is no "the same but different" in real Science. I bet only pseudo-science would allow it.

If your answer is "they are different" for Question 1,  you have a scientific mindset that based on proven scientific agrument.  Your claim is an valid objective, scientific claim.

If your answer is "they are the same" for Question 1,  you have, I believe, an engineering mindset based on practical usage. Your claim is not objective as your claim is based on your own belief that "1.00000000000001 is same as 1.00000000000000" 

I understand in "reality",  you may consider they are the same but, please, and please DON"T say objectively they are the same. Please don't. It is simply 100% wrong. (Do we have to define the term objectively next time?)

Do all the people have to conform to the group thinking view that these two numbers are the same?

Sorry, my scientific mindset won't allow me to conform such view no matter what/how you do. They are NOT the same. Period.

Similarly in the audio space, if your speakers are reproducing objectively different audio signal for different "audibly trasnparent" DACs, how can you be so sure that they have to sound the same to your ears? 

Why they sound different if they are the same?
 
It is because they are indeed not the same objectively!

If you have to say they are the same, then I would reply with a "pseduo-science" reply as:

Yes, they sound the same but different!

p.s.: I hope people can "reconfig" to enable their "thinking" again if it is somehow not allowed for whatever reason in the past.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

768kHz for digital music sampling? Can you hear 384kHz? You're crazy...

Image
Do I want to hear up to 384kHz? LOL... of course not 😂 768kHz sampling is for something else... ( TL;DR ) The number one mis-understanding of why using Hi-Res music is:       " why we need to to hear frequencies that fall in the ultrasonic range (i.e. higher than 22kHz for most people)???" If you asked similar question or answered someone's question like below, then you are pretty much belong to a group of people who don't know what's Hi-Res music is. Hi-Res music is, in fact, to help your DAC to reconstruct better audio output for the audible range (yes, it is for the frequencies BELOW 22kHz with 768kHz sampling)... (It is a  real dialogue  as I just saw it today in an Audio Science forum) Someone asked: Ma ny DACs descriptions enhance in capital letters 32/768 kHz resolution. Is there any domain when such a resolution may be justified ?   Other (more experienced member) replied: Can you think of a circumstance where you'd even want a dynamic range of over
Read more

"The expert in 'the Monty's video' shows clearly Hi-Res is useless; you won't get stair step audio signal output from CD"....Well, let's check together to find out!

Image
 " The 'Monty's video' shows Hi-Res is useless. The expert said you won't get stair step audio signal ..." I bet the above video , also known as "the Monty's video", is quite famous amongst the supporters who turly believe that " Hi-Res is useless". Whenever these supporters were questioned why "Hi-Res is useless", some of them would just show you that "scientific proof". Some supporter even made another YouTube video to support the very same "scientific" claim based on the same "Monty's video" (as they considered all the things the Monty's video said is factual). The supporter named his video as " Debunking the Digital Audio Myth: The Truth About the 'Stair-Step' Effect " A lot of these supporters may asked, "With so many experts on YouTube demonstrating so clearly with the help of a bunch of   lab equipments and doing various experiments in front of our eyes ,
Read more

You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you!

Image
You should not hear it! It is your brain fooling you! Well... but... but... I really do hear it. This is the following up of the previous blog:  Confirmation bias. Do you have it? My previous blog was based on the following picture (you don't have to read my previous blog before reading this one): If you see 4 boxes with graident of different greyscales in the middle column. Great, you don't have any confirmation bias .  What if I told you that there are something wrong with your vision, as you SHOULD see 4 different static grey color boxes instead of gradients.  The following picture show you the second box is actually a static grey color box (this is the actual capture of the second box in the above picture, you can try to capture it and see for yourself): You may say, " Cool, now, I know I got tricked by my visual perception ".  AFTER  knowing the fact that all the 4 boxes in the middle column of the first picture are indeed just static grey boxes (instead of
Read more