Seeing is believeing? Another trick of Pseudo Science: Demo

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 that you could do the same test / experiment yourself to verify their saying.

The Magic Part

They won't tell you that they are using an analog or a digital oscilloscope with limited resolution. Most of these oscilloscope are analog.

For the above one shown in the "Monty's video", he used an analog oscilloscope (link) to show the "smooth" sine wave output. 

I am not sure if he selected analog oscilloscope intentionally or it was because digital oscilloscope was not that popular in 2012. 

Due to the architecture/design of analog oscilloscope, it has a tendency / property to smooth out the displayed waveform.

Based on Copilot, it said digital oscilloscopes were popular in 2012. Only Monty would know why he selected an analog oscilloscope when he took the video.

During my discussion in Head-Fi about Hi-Res music (in 2024), a fellow member did the similar test / experiment and showed the following  "perfect" sine wave using his analog oscilloscope (with digital storage):

Its manual can be found here. It is an analog oscilloscope with digital storage (8-bit). Is he tricked by the "Monty's video"?

Analog oscilloscope is a great device. It helps you to see what's happening but it is never a high-precision / high-accuracy measurement instrument. High precision / accuracy multi-meter would do a better job (but it cannot let you see the waveform) in terms of measurement. I think it should be highlighted in basic measurement course like electronic/electrical measurement 101 at college. No?

Digital oscilloscope is better in terms of precision / accuracy for measurements; however, it suffers from the resolution issue. To my understanding, they started with 8-bit then moved on to 10-bit. 12-bits are getting popular these days (of course, a higher bit ones would always be available for very special / professional usage).

For example, Rigol just released (in 2023) a new high resolution series of their digital oscilloscope.



The Truth

Let's have a look of the following waveform (source: How to Measure Oscilloscope ADC Dynamic Range (youtube.com)) using a 12-bit resolution digital oscilloscope (Rigol HDO4204)



Is it a "perfect", "smooth" trianglar wave? Well... looks like it is but... let's zoom in...

Here is what it looks like 


Is it a smooth line? 

You cannot see this with analog oscilloscope easily.

It is up to you to insist the above trigular waveform is a "perfect" and "smooth" waveform. But in my eyes, they are not. Period.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"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

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 ov...
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 (inste...
Read more