[gregorio]

I like to imagine that this is gregorios mind

https://media.giphy.com/media/e37RbTLYjfc1q/giphy.gif

What, you imagine my mind is like a privacy notice?

How i often picture this sub-forum:

How I picture it:

“1 + 1 = 2”.
Audiophile response:
“My wife and I had 2 children, therefore 1+1=4. And I read in a magazine that Angelina and Brad adopted a bunch of children, so 1+1= like 7 or something. This is my experience, so you can’t argue with it and if science proves something else, science is either wrong or doesn’t know everything yet!

G

 

[Corti]

How I picture it:

“1 + 1 = 2”.
Audiophile response:
“My wife and I had 2 children, therefore 1+1=4. And I read in a magazine that Angelina and Brad adopted a bunch of children, so 1+1= like 7 or something. This is my experience, so you can’t argue with it and if science proves something else, science is either wrong or doesn’t know everything yet!

Someone: 1+1=2

Audiophile: EnOuGh with the science religion! Why don’t you let me EnJoY mY mUsIC??! Also 1+1 is not yet defind bcause science dosent knowe ervything! St0p inSuLtinG m3!

Spoiler

 

[Ryokan]

 

[Corti]

Meanwhile in "Can you hear a difference between DUCK's" - thread:

 

[Daiyama]

How i often picture this sub-forum:

I agree to that and we all should exploit that!
We should do everything to highten our mood so we enjoy the music more.
AND we should except that different people do this differently, e.g. by having a nice glass of *fill here what ever drink you like*, listen to music with friends or reading a scientific book about music recording and reproduction or using nice and shiny and heavy and/or extra expensive audio gear or even listen to DSD1024 files .
What ever brings someone in a positive mood is good way to improve a positive audio perception. Some ways costs more than others, but hey it is not your or my money so what why bother.....

 

[Corti]

I agree to that and we all should exploit that!
We should do everything to highten our mood so we enjoy the music more.
AND we should except that different people do this differently, e.g. by having a nice glass of *fill here what ever drink you like*, listen to music with friends or reading a scientific book about music recording and reproduction or using nice and shiny and heavy and/or extra expensive audio gear or even listen to DSD1024 files .
What ever brings someone in a positive mood is good way to improve a positive audio perception. Some ways costs more than others, but hey it is not your or my money so what why bother.....

Well, kind of and kind of not. I would have a few objections to this. Because It’s not that simple in my opinion.

But explaining it would involve other topics and seeing things in a bigger context. I don’t want to go there in this thread again. So, very generally, yes, many things influence our perception and the joy derived from it, of which comfort and well-being are probably the most important.

 

[Daiyama]

Thought so

 

[71 dB]

What, you imagine my mind is like a privacy notice?

How I picture it:

“1 + 1 = 2”.

1 + 1 = 2 is a self-evident thing even the most intelligent animals can understand I believe, but it is surprisingly complex to prove it mathematically from the axioms:

Audiophile response:
“My wife and I had 2 children, therefore 1+1=4. And I read in a magazine that Angelina and Brad adopted a bunch of children, so 1+1= like 7 or something. This is my experience, so you can’t argue with it and if science proves something else, science is either wrong or doesn’t know everything yet!

G

Week later their son is killed in a horrific school shooting, but luckily their daughter survives and suddenly and sadly 1+1=3.

 

[Davesrose]

1 + 1 = 2 is a self-evident thing even the most intelligent animals can understand I believe, but it is surprisingly complex to prove it mathematically from the axioms:

Is it? Because the obstacles I've had with gregorio tend to be nominclature and not being respectful. I'm involved with video production, but he thinks I have to accept his incorrect claim that streaming video first buffers in 720P if you're on a 4K device. Or that advertisement with HD video ever had anything to do with bit depth and not just resolution. Math itself is universal: you just have to accept the same variables. And before he responds to this, I know he'll dissect this with his irrelevant multi quote system saying "irrelevant!"....but he was the one who responded to me about how people draw analogies of "hi-res" to computer graphics.

 

[bigshot]

Well, kind of and kind of not. I would have a few objections to this. Because It’s not that simple in my opinion. But explaining it would involve other topics and seeing things in a bigger context. I don’t want to go there in this thread again.

Your restraint is admirable, and I hope others take it as a model for themselves. Most people in this forum gleefully trot off into intensely arguing irrelevant tangents and bringing up old grudges to pick pointless fights. All it ever proves is their own lack of self awareness and willpower. It's refreshing to find someone who sees a complete waste of time for what it it. I salute you.

 

[Corti]

Your restraint is admirable, and I hope others take it as a model for themselves. Most people in this forum gleefully trot off into intensely arguing irrelevant tangents and bringing up old grudges to pick pointless fights. All it ever proves is their own lack of self awareness and willpower. It's refreshing to find someone who sees a complete waste of time for what it it. I salute you.

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it.

I shall take the opportunity to add some thoughts based on what you wrote (spoiler: it’s only philosophical ramble).

So I think the depth of a statement in an online forum, should depend a lot on who you are talking to (might be obvious, but I notice it being overlooked many times). The very same statement may not reach everyone in the same way (especially very technical things). Trying to see the person unbiased, regardless how right or wrong her/his argument is, and then proceeding with a response that gets processed by the other person in a fruitful way, will usually be rewarded by a more thoughtful response from the opposite themself. The result is almost always mutually beneficial (as always, exceptions exist). Basing this solely on my own experience (on- and offline). Yours may vary of course.

If this (mutual beneift) was never the intention, I would not understand why (to what purpose) to engage in a discussion with that person at all. If it’s only to boost your ego (as seen a lot online)… that's a very low motivation in my opinion, which neither helps you nor anyone else. Thus a waste of time.

Further I think Factual Knowledge by itself doesn’t mean much in a world where you can’t share it, due to others not being able to follow you. It may even lead to the opposite effect where others develop an aversion to those things, because of negative associations with it (which you may not care about, but in the end you did care, else you would not have said anything in the first place). So the ability to reach people becomes mandatory in communication. Ultimately, I believe it is only the propagation of knowledge that will lead to human advancement. Sometimes taking a step back to widen the field of view helps a lot (I often notice this when shopping for groceries, not being able to find what I’m looking for ).

PS: I guess I worked longer on writing this, than I should have but I think it reaches the right people. And sorry for "off-topicing" again, clearly it's bigshots fault!
Have a good weekend you all.

 

[gregorio]

Because the obstacles I've had with gregorio tend to be nominclature and not being respectful.

Then why argue nomenclature, especially if you don’t understand or appreciate it, and why be disrespectful yourself?

I'm involved with video production, but he thinks I have to accept his incorrect claim that streaming video first buffers in 720P if you're on a 4K device.

Just making up a false assertion of what I think is obviously disrespectful. The obvious question is therefore; why are you creating “obstacles” with me by “not being respectful”?

Most people in this forum gleefully trot off into intensely arguing irrelevant tangents and bringing up old grudges to pick pointless fights.

You only get to choose what’s “irrelevant” to you personally, not for everyone else on this forum. If it’s science that pertains to sound/audio then it is relevant to this subforum, regardless of whether it’s relevant to you personally. Additionally, “bringing up old grudges” (as you put it) may not be “to pick pointless fights”. For example it may be to demonstrate a consistent misunderstanding or falsehood over a period of time.

All it ever proves is their own lack of self awareness and willpower.

As you’ve “intensely argued irrelevant tangents” in the past, then you’re describing yourself.

However, clearly your assertion is false. Intense arguments, even over a “tangent”, sometimes result in links being posted to scientific papers (or other factual information) which do prove a point/s other than only “a lack of self awareness and willpower” and are useful/of interest to some. Some have stated this in public posts and others in PMs.

Lastly, how are your quoted points/arguments relevant to either Sound Science or this thread?

G

 

[71 dB]

Math itself is universal: you just have to accept the same variables.

Math isn't about "accepting" things. It is about proving them. Take for example the simplest mathematical problem so difficult nobody has been able to solve, the Collatz Conjecture. The problem itself is this easy: Take any positive integer number x.

If x is even, half it to get a new x: x => x/2 (e.g. x = 28 gives us new x = 14)
If x is odd, multiply it by 3 and add 1 to get a new x (e.g. x = 27 gives us x = 82)

Continue this process forever. The Collatz Conjecture says that it doesn't matter what positive inter you start with, eventually this process will lead to 4 => 2 => 1 => 4 => 2.... loop. For example x = 7 gives the sequence:

7 => 22 => 11 => 34 => 17 => 52 => 26 => 13 => 40 => 20 => 10 => 5 => 16 => 8 => 4 => 2 => 1 => 4 => 2 => 1 => 4 =>....

This conjecture has been tested with computers up to very large integers (at least the size of 10^20) and this conjecture has hold up, but mathematicians won't just "accept" it is true for any positive integer until someone is able to prove this conjecture, because the next integer that hasn't been tested yet may break the conjecture and no matter how many you test, there is always the next one waiting...

 

[Ryokan]

This conjecture has been tested with computers up to very large integers (at least the size of 10^20) and this conjecture has hold up, but mathematicians won't just "accept" it is true for any positive integer until someone is able to prove this conjecture, because the next integer that hasn't been tested yet may break the conjecture and no matter how many you test, there is always the next one waiting...

Which is as you'd expect experts in their field to be: don't take anything for granted? Because when you do it could have severe consequences i.e working out rocket trajectories involving planetary bodies.

 

[71 dB]

Which is as you'd expect experts in their field to be: don't take anything for granted? Because when you do it could have severe consequences i.e working out rocket trajectories involving planetary bodies.

Sometimes we have to take something for granted (when something needs to be done without 100 % knowledge), but that's another topic.