Sy wrote:
That proclamation from on high is based on quite a few assumptions, one of which is that we have a perfect understanding of the physics involved in the conversion of analogue or digital data into auditory stimuli.
It always troubles me when people think they understand something perfectly.
That proclamation from on high is based on quite a few assumptions, one of which is that we have a perfect understanding of the physics involved in the conversion of analogue or digital data into auditory stimuli.
It always troubles me when people think they understand something perfectly.
mach1 said:
After some light relief in foreign language rather than foreign thinking in normal language (a stimulating change!), back to the subject here ....
as well as back yet again to a sine qua non that constantly begs repetition, viz. that scientists don't know everything, but they do know certain things.
A few decades ago I was involved in hearing research (including the physiological and psychological sides). Since then, as well as after reading a whole lot of other research, I was modestly convinced that we are aware of certain things that can not be heard. Considering certain relevant electronic basics together with that, this falls under things we do know and can claim in the audio reproduction business.
How does it then follow that I need to have "a perfect understanding of the physics involved ..." or whatever else in order to understand certain things?
Following on the above: I do not have a perfect understanding of mathematics, but I do understand that 5 + 3 = 8 - and in that vein, that it cannot = 10 (to the base of 10, before the usual remarks crop up
)
Johan,I think that no one claimed that scientists know certain things-only-.Speaking of myself when I said something similar,what I meant and really believe,is that scientists know everything that it is known up to this moment.I believe also that tomorrow they will know more.Something's telling me that mach1 meant the same thing,but I might be wrong.
Mach1,
With that I must unfortunately agree . But coming from a research background, it was always necessary to keep in mind the differences I mentioned. I think in the case of audio it has been pretty well established what is not audible from the multitude of tests in this regard, though we may not yet know the physiological mechanism.
With that I must unfortunately agree
. But coming from a research background, it was always necessary to keep in mind the differences I mentioned. I think in the case of audio it has been pretty well established what is not audible from the multitude of tests in this regard, though we may not yet know the physiological mechanism.
pointy said:
Yes,we are ok
We are expecting George to return from a busines trip,and he will be the first to try the electric chair.He'll be back on Thursday so the fun will be just a few days late.Everything is almost ready.I will try to upload a few pictures in a day or two.Back to training
If you want to be amused, just play these videos from Virtual Dynamics and listen to the description.
http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/the-oddiophile-ep-10
Disclaimer: not associated with the manufacturer, yada, yada, yada...
http://www.virtualdynamics.ca/the-oddiophile-ep-10
Disclaimer: not associated with the manufacturer, yada, yada, yada...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.