Debunk Pseudo Science Claims

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...

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...

 Measurement accuracy, precision and Pseudo Science Looks like I spent way too much time these days related to my experience in a recent incident . Let's move on and come back to the focus of my blog, i.e. use critical thinking to debunk pseudo science claim How many people can tell the difference between accuracy and precision? I bet if you are into gun, you would probably know it for sure .  Look at the below graph: It should tell you what are the difference between accuracy and precision.  I bet that the understanding of the difference between accuracy and precision is so basic for any scientist/engineer. I was proven to be wrong again (thanks to various "audio science" forums and they are really eye-opening for me to see something I didn't see before). A lot of "scientist/engineer" can't tell the difference. "Precision part":  two DACs are measured to have very high SINAD. People in the "audio science" forums would call these two ...

One of the major characteristics of Pseudo Science: Contradiction. I just had an interesting discussion  with someone in the Head-Fi sound science forum. As usual, they came up with contradictions and stopped me right the way as they knew that I would dig out more contradictions from them during the discussion. Example 1: Is square wave an illegal input signal for digital audio? Someone said no, it is not illegal: Someone said yes, it is illegal: Interestingly, they agreed that all these quotes are ok (i.e. compatible with each other) as shown below: Hmm...  1. All square waves are band-limited    2. square waves, another signal with infinite bandwidth I believe that any sense people would know that item 1 and item 2 are contradicting with each other.   Example 2:    We were talking about band-limited square wave, i.e.  To be exact, the above was generated by the following: One of the senior member in the sound forum stated the following (i...