If it's purely an engineering challenge why bother designing yet another DAC?

Jump to Latest
#261
bozoc said:
😱

Does that reflect your total understanding of the subject, or do you have something relevant to say?



Tell me, do you think science works without any cultural implications?

That's a totally different discussion. Its not about science itself, but how its used. Of course scientists have a responsibility to consider the ethical (not cultural) implications of their discoveries. Surely the scientists who built the atom bomb new they were doing something terrible!

Judging by your diatribes here, neither have you, or did not bother to understand him.

He was compulsory reading for my Science Degree. I mentioned Thomas Khun as an author from the 1960's to indicate how long the debate has been going.
As I am not quoting him, or using him to support my arguements, I don't see the relevance of your comment.


He had some good points, but I would not generally take Feynman's philosophical excursions seriously. Don't take this as defense of Naaling's philosophical excursions.
Click to expand...

How can it be anything else?
 
Last edited:
#264
KaffiMann said:
Measure all you like, just because it comes up on one measurement done in a specific way does not make it objective.
Click to expand...
Measurement is objective. Measuring devices don't have feelings like human beings. What human beings do with measurements may be subjective but not the measurement itself.
Insert nitpicking ad nauseum etc.
Click to expand...
If nitpicking bothers you, don't read unless there's someone forcing you to do so. Is there?
And then the completely pointless back and forth thing with Evenharmonics and a clearly agitated Naaling, why do you even bother?
Click to expand...
Do you know or even care what barrows referred to as nonsense?

It just goes on, and on, and on, and on...
More people enter the fray to add either a bit off common sense, or petrol to the bonfire. Hardly any more noteworthy contributions to the thread about AK4399 because of all the *******' NOISE.

John W has a good post:


And 3 whole pages of peace follows this post, remarkable.

Then he posts a positive experience about some new parts:


And then it goes without saying, the noise comes back for a bit...
John W tries to explain, clearly stating the conditions surrounding his experience:


It's no use, now here comes tirade of shouting and completely pointless opinionated drivel, much like this example:


I did manage to find 1 positive post from Naaling:


I was tired of all the nonsense, and I wanted it to stop:


People clearly took offense at my wish to keep to topic, after a short but heated discussion we get 1 whole page of peace.

Meanwhile, John W clings to topic:


We then get almost 1 whole page of nice discussion.

I have not seen any more polite replies or contributions to topic since post #308:


Except Simon Dart's post above mine ofcourse, which is an attempt at cooling things down gently. Post 398.
So thats 90 posts that in my opinion are more or less pointless, please do not start arguing about that as well. Or do any of you think something good has come out of those 90 posts?
Click to expand...
KaffiMann said:
I am not objecting against the scientific method, but I am objecting to your choice of words.
Please, just try with a modicum of respect and humility. People will be more likely to meet you the same way.
Click to expand...
You are nitpicking, aren't you. :nownow:
 
#265
5th element said:
This is red herring though. Objectivists bring up testing methodology as a rebuttal against subjectivists to shut them up. The fact most objectivists don't know the absolute specific details, about what methodology should be used, to ensure accurate subjective testing is moot and it doesn't alter the fact that subjective testing/impressions gained, without controlled conditions, is essentially meaningless.

I don't have a problem with any of the single, one dimensional, tests/experiments that we use to characterise our equipment. This is always brought up by subjectivists to try and discredit measurements except that the single tone stuff is mathematically related to the multi-tone stuff. It's all connected.

No we're not. If the differences we're big then they would be obvious to anyone and you wouldn't require stringent testing in order to try and prove whether or not they are audible.

These differences are, by definition, extremely tiny.

There's nothing circular going on here at all. Because the differences are extremely tiny they only represent the last few hundredths of a percent of a piece of equipments performance.

Yet to the subjectivist those extremely tiny differences would represent the difference between one piece of equipment sounding good and the other one sounding 'significantly better'.

So that extremely tiny difference represents a difference that's night and day to the subjectivit.

I have no reason to believe that the premise would be false. Afterall the same science that's used for the analysis and quantification of audio equipment is essentially the same science that put a man on the moon, landed probes on comets, rovers on Mars, landed satellites in orbit of distance planets, gave us GPS, the internet, ultrasound, gravitational wave detectors etc. If it can do all that with an incredible level of accuracy and precision why would audio be the exception?

Remember we're not talking about perception, which involves the brain, but accurately recreating the signal that's stored on the storage medium. Science might lack in terms of representing what our brain does, but it certainly does not lack in terms of examining how well something can recreate the signal input to it.
Click to expand...
Another good one. :up:

Just curious, do you know that Jakob2 publicly revealed that he is in audio business?
 
#266
Naaling said:
Obviously, you've run out of ideas.
Click to expand...

Out of ideas on what? Of the dac 4499? I don't need your "help" on that, it was only the topic of the original thread, until your's and comrades arrival. The virus invasion.
Respect to the original thread, given that I only have that dac and have some ideas about it, furthermore only can test it up to a level unreachable to most of the "virus brigade" here, I can peacefully lean back and wait until this sh¥t cleans up.
Sincerely Your's, G
 
#267
Joseph K said:
Out of ideas on what? Of the dac 4499? I don't need your "help" on that, it was only the topic of the original thread, until your's and comrades arrival. The virus invasion.
Respect to the original thread, given that I only have that dac and have some ideas about it, furthermore only can test it up to a level unreachable to most of the "virus brigade" here, I can peacefully lean back and wait until this sh¥t cleans up.
Sincerely Your's, G
Click to expand...

Lets face it. You'd be in it, up to your eyeballs, if you thought you could "win".
 
#268
Joseph K said:
I only have that dac and have some ideas about it, furthermore only can test it up to a level unreachable to most of the "virus brigade" here, I can peacefully lean back and wait until this sh¥t cleans up.
Sincerely Your's, G
Click to expand...


There are some people on this thread with some serious test gear. I wouldn't make chest beating claims about your test capability...
 
#271
Evenharmonics said:
Measurement is objective. Measuring devices don't have feelings like human beings. What human beings do with measurements may be subjective but not the measurement itself.
Click to expand...
That would depend on the surrounding circumstances of the measurements, it is entirely possible to get results from a set of measurements that are unobtainable in normal usage scenarios.
 
#275
Naaling said:
This sort of philosophical nonsense has been going on for ages. Read Thomas Khun in the 1960's. Its an extension of ancient Greek sophistry - How can we be sure reality is real?
...
Does that reflect your total understanding of the subject, or do you have something relevant to say?
...
He was compulsory reading for my Science Degree
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get your ideas on Khun's work.

To call Khun's work an extension of Greek sophistry is silly at it's best.
With many things there is a long intellectual lineage, this includes science(although the word 'science' only appears in 19th century, before that scientists were called 'natural philosophers'). Khun provides a strong framework and relies on your understanding of history of science, there is a lot more going on.


Naaling said:
That's a totally different discussion. Its not about science itself, but how its used. Of course scientists have a responsibility to consider the ethical (not cultural) implications of their discoveries. Surely the scientists who built the atom bomb new they were doing something terrible!
Click to expand...

Science could never be really successfully speared from culture or ideology since you are part of both, whether you like it or not. It's funny that you mention that scientist that 'responsibility to consider the ethical (not cultural)', but the ethics themselves are partially formed by the culture, thus the silly belief that science is this big objective eye that scans it's surroundings which is belief held amongst academics lately.

For example, the terminology objective and subjective is used very vaguely in a theoretical way here, but very specific in negative and positive value associations one wants to evoke.

That brings us to false dichotomies used in this discussions, objectivism-subjectivism, rationalism-irationalism. Not only that these are theoretically poor terms to be used as such, but is clear whey they are used here, the former immateriality evokes a positive association and latter negative. These things cannot be dichotomized into into such simplistic terms.

It actually takes a pretty high level of arrogance to call yourself hard objectivist, having your thoughts taken by definition universally valid.

Ask yourself for example, how many times do you read "objetivists" here use the word like placebo compared to nocebo, effect that equally matters in these listening tests?

Turns out, our objectivists spamming their scientism induced nonsense here are not so objective after all...
 
#277
bozoc said:
Turns out, our objectivists spamming their scientism induced nonsense here are not so objective after all...
Click to expand...

If you are to critic scientism, you are welcomed to do so; many philosophers did, some quite successfully when discussing social sciences or even economics (economy is indeed the one and only "science" that is able to explain everything post factum, while it can't predict a d*mn thing).

But then put something in to replace the scientific method; otherwise, case in point, you are comparing individual anecdotes about the sound of X with hard data (as much as you would dislike it). That would be ridiculous and would not be accepted by the toughest critics of scientism (e.g. Feierabend et. al.).

Just propose a new non scientific method of SQ investigation, that goes beyond the Socratic method (good for psychotherapy, but not much good for searching the truth), which you otherwise seem to favour.
 
#279
TNT said:
There is an agenda. In this case it seem to be commercial - there is no other explanation.
Click to expand...

A failure of imagination perhaps? Of course there is another explanation available - that you have an aversion to things which to you look like nefarious commercialism. A perceptual bias IOW. Not saying this is the correct explanation, just that its entirely plausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom