Debunk Pseudo Science Claims

Fact vs good-enough... Science vs pseudo-science. TLDR: I came across a thread that discuss 16-bit vs 24-bit in digital music .  Some people said 16-bit is good enough and 24-bit is useless. Some said 24-bit is marketing hype for promoting Hi-Res music and its play-back equipments. Is it true that 24-bit is useless?  Math is the queen of all science .  What does Math tell us? Let's see what the math tell us about 16-bit vs 24-bit: In digital music (PCM-format), the music is quantized at different sampling time. CD uses 16-bit and Hi-Res use 24-bit (or higher). For 16-bit quantization, it divides the full dynamic range into 2^16 levels, i.e. 65,536 levels. For 24-bit quantization, it divides the same full dynamic range into 2^26 levels, i.e. 16,777,216 levels. It is 256 times more than the 16-bit quantization. It is a hard-core fact that 24-bit is inherently better than 16-bit.  I my mind, it is very simple. It is like 1.000 is different than 1.001 Math won't lie; only people d

 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