Well that was convincing…
So, he presented an assertion without supporting reliable evidence but that does broadly align with the science/facts. You present assertions without supporting reliable evidence that does not align with the science facts and you don’t find the former convincing but you do find the latter convincing?!
Would you entertain that a given set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when TAKING A TEST for format differentiation purposes and that a possibly different set of cognitive functions are possibly engaged when casually LISTENING TO MUSIC for enjoyment purposes?
Yes, if you provide reliable evidence that there is a “
different set of cognitive functions engaged”. However, even if that were the case, it would NOT support your claim, you would have to provide reliable evidence that this (supposed) different set of cognitive functions
“when casually listening to music” actually results in higher sensitivity and more accurate and reliable results compared to taking a controlled test. You might possibly manage the first but the second will be a huge problem for you because we already have a significant body of reliable evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion! Which of course is exactly why DBT/ABX is the gold standard of listening tests. If there were reliable evidence that “
casually listening to music” was more accurate or reliable for discerning differences then that is exactly what science would do. Simple logic and common sense dictates that it would be stupid to go through all the bother and cost of designing and running an DBT/ABX test if “
casually listening to music” provided more accurate and reliable results!
You’re effectively claiming that millions of highly educated scientists have got it wrong for more than a century but that you and some other audiophiles with no education, except that provided by audiophile marketing, have got it right. And, your nonsense claim is somehow “
convincing” even though you have no reliable supporting evidence?
The more bits, the more accurate the signal as the voltage is simply measured in smaller gradients.
No, the more bits the more accurate the data but NOT the more accurate the signal (output signal). The accuracy of the (output) signal is effectively perfectly accurate, regardless of the number of bits, what changes with bit depth is dynamic range (the noise floor), not signal accuracy. If this were not the case, then SACD (which is just one bit) would result in an horrifically inaccurate signal compared to 16bit, not to mention that Shannon’s proven theory of communication would have to be wrong and therefore there is no digital/computer/information age. You’re not really claiming that are you? If you are, then that’s just plain nuts, considering you’re using a computer and the Information Age to write and post your responses, and if you’re not claiming that, then your understanding of digital must be wrong!
G