I assume the irony is intentional.
From the Wikipedia entry on Vitamin C:
And yes, it is worth reading the link to controlled experiment too...
The human genome lost the ability to produce vitamin C by itself, unless a few people still can.
We are some of the few living creatures which actually need it. It serves more purpose than preventing scurvy.
Even prior to it's discovery of preventing scurvy, people knew that citrus fruits and raspberries and such were healthy, no evidence was necessary.
What is your underlying point with the Wiki link and "irony" comment?
As for first controlled experiment - do you honestly believe that?
So the Antikythera mechanism was invented without any controlled experiments then and ancient medicine never performed any A / B trials then, so how did Egyptians come up with medicine like contraceptives then? Did some spirits tell them?
Your evidence-only school of thought is looking more and more flawed as this discussion continues.
We are some of the few living creatures which actually need it. It serves more purpose than preventing scurvy.
Even prior to it's discovery of preventing scurvy, people knew that citrus fruits and raspberries and such were healthy, no evidence was necessary.
What is your underlying point with the Wiki link and "irony" comment?
As for first controlled experiment - do you honestly believe that?
So the Antikythera mechanism was invented without any controlled experiments then and ancient medicine never performed any A / B trials then, so how did Egyptians come up with medicine like contraceptives then? Did some spirits tell them?
Your evidence-only school of thought is looking more and more flawed as this discussion continues.
Prior to Lind in 1747 it would have been discovered by chance to prevent scurvy already.
He just used control groups, why did he run an experiment with citrus fruits? Why not nuts and seeds, lettuce, horsetail, ginseng?
He arrived at science via divine foretelling? intuition?
I don't see the point in your post, please explain further.
Also tell me how Egyptians knew of contraceptive medicine.
He just used control groups, why did he run an experiment with citrus fruits? Why not nuts and seeds, lettuce, horsetail, ginseng?
He arrived at science via divine foretelling? intuition?
I don't see the point in your post, please explain further.
Also tell me how Egyptians knew of contraceptive medicine.
great idea for a new thread
You prefer I make a new thread since we diverted from quantization noise?
The N word and even Khmer is not really nice to use, I can't think of an accurate thread title right now.
You clearly don't, so I suggest you go and correct the wikipedia page. Anyone can do it - but for the correction to be accepted, you need to provide references and evidence.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. But unless you can support it with more than just opinion, it will be just that.
Last edited:
And as I don't see the point of this whole thread, I think we should just let it finally die.
What I learned from debating science with trolls
Let's entertain that I don't first.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Interested in how you will answer this.
I read academic research usually every single day.
The tone of your comment is, I think, that the papers are well known to people "in the know", but you are not linking to them.
I'm sure you're at a computer and can easily look them up, I'm still on my phone most of the time, like right now.
Yes?
I'd rather watch cartoons than believe in / promote the lies presented as fact put forth by for example NwAvGuy / Ethan Winer.
If you call that "not learning", it seems like your subjective analysis.
I think I read every single article by them, there's a lot of pseudo-fact and - much like you - defending lower sound quality.
We don't even know what is the proper daily dosis of vitamine C.
Back to the subject: Do we agree that the intensity range of human hearing is about 120 dB? That is between the threshold of perception and threshold of pain, around the frequency where the human ear is most sensitive, 4 kHz. Now, we need to reproduce a 10 dB audio signal with max. 30% distortion, a 20 dB signal with 10%, a 40 dB signal with 1%, a 60 dB signal (now we arrive at more common ranges) with 0.1%, and so on. The necessary bit resolution can be easily calculated from this. If we go towards higher levels, the required lower distortion limit goes up again, due to masking. The bit resolution can be lower, accordingly. The most critical range is somewhere between 60-80 dB and around 500 Hz - 5 kHz. Don't ask me what is the maximum permitted distortion and minimum required resolution, but you can estimate. Similarly you can estimate the required time resolution and timing variance. For me 96 kHz/20 bit seems more than enough at the end user, 192 kHz/24 bit for sound engineering. I always miss the jitter specification as the third parameter.
Back to the subject: Do we agree that the intensity range of human hearing is about 120 dB? That is between the threshold of perception and threshold of pain, around the frequency where the human ear is most sensitive, 4 kHz. Now, we need to reproduce a 10 dB audio signal with max. 30% distortion, a 20 dB signal with 10%, a 40 dB signal with 1%, a 60 dB signal (now we arrive at more common ranges) with 0.1%, and so on. The necessary bit resolution can be easily calculated from this. If we go towards higher levels, the required lower distortion limit goes up again, due to masking. The bit resolution can be lower, accordingly. The most critical range is somewhere between 60-80 dB and around 500 Hz - 5 kHz. Don't ask me what is the maximum permitted distortion and minimum required resolution, but you can estimate. Similarly you can estimate the required time resolution and timing variance. For me 96 kHz/20 bit seems more than enough at the end user, 192 kHz/24 bit for sound engineering. I always miss the jitter specification as the third parameter.
I think I agree that 120 dB is the upper limit, but who plays their music, in their homes, at 120 dB? Considering average speaker efficiencies and amp power, it seems about 110 dB is the practical maximum under domestic conditions (remember that 85 dB is the limit for hearing damage from long-term exposure). I also challenge anyone to show me a listening room with a background noise level below 20 dB. Thus the practical range is about 90 dB. Does anyone have actual music recordings that comes anywhere near that?
I agree with "more than enough", but I wonder why you pick 96 kHz? With modern filters, 44 kHz seems enough, and 48 kHz would be "more than enough".
Yes, 24 bits to give headroom when recording and processing, but again I question the sample rate - most professional sound engineering is done at 48 or 96 kHz, and most engineers consider 96 kHz "overkill".
I will check the link in a moment but I'm not "trolling" anywhere.
I'm discussing technical facts and theory with hardly any display of emotion whatsoever.
Trolling comes from a fishing term, it was confused with the forest troll in Europe.
That legend of trolls, well, actually they really existed, they were rogue short Neanderthals wandering in the forests of anatomically modern human, also known sometimes as Cro-Magnon, which by comparison were tall and slender, up to 195cm or taller.
ScienceDaily: News, Videos & Articles in Science, Health, Technology & Environment has plenty of information on that.
It's not entirely off topic, this is a good example, since "science" recently "changed it's mind" about all that, that's why some people lose faith or take issue with your evidence school, it can't paint the entire picture for us with any accuracy, it constructs a picture based on known fact.
You may take some delight in that picture but you have to admit that it's flawed in it's statistical trend.
Circle of confusion, so a perfect picture dose not have to have unlimited pixels.
Quite.
No need for quotes. In science (no quotes) the current understanding is just that, it is the collective current understanding, and it gets refined as we find out more. But the criteria for the evidence that makes us change that understanding is pretty strict. Again, I suggest you (re-)read Elements of the Scientific Method. It might surprise you that science is actually evidence-based and not anecdote-based.
Quantization noise in this thread is overwhelming......
So is "truncation error" =)
It doesn't, just like sampling audio at 15 Ghz will not yield any difference versus 10 Ghz, there is nothing left to sample!!
Noise ?
It was in reference to the Godwin point theory and I assume each grup is auto centred on its own (geographic, own interest, etc) culture, here the Godwin point was about medecine.
I liked the entry of Bateman fellow about Gedlee point. 10 or 15 years ago when you talked about hifi on forum you always end it with the sound of cables !
Here I suggested you my two cents theory of inverse Godwin point with the Evil-lost point (as it's two cents and second degree) : Beginn with what you want, we will go after 100 posts to the Quantification noise....as we are all very auto-centred on Hifi !
By the way it's just to add to the surrealistic... Personnaly I like when threads slide or make a pause to something else... it adds some humanity to some too much long technical thread where mind is involved for an almost childy hobby for gifted adults on this Earth of contrast
Very interresting non audio links I saw...
I like also those one about equilibrium : https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bel+ete+france+3
(
: that's my two cents contribution, we will come back soon to this interresting OP...)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.