Careful of Amir here, while I applaud his efforts to provide objective measurements and priority on ASR is typically given to science/fact rather than marketing, he has an agenda of his own regarding hi-res! We had a run-in with him here several years ago and he’s not beyond misunderstanding/misrepresenting the science/facts or at least bending them, if his ego is questioned/threatened.
To me, I think I am still at kindergarden level regarding Audio Science (well... may be at primary school level now). Therefore, I want to learn from you guys regarding Audio Science.
OK, so we have your admission that even you believe you’re at kindergarten level, we’ll come back to that! Next, you claim you “
want to learn”, we’ll come back to that too.
Bingo! I found it, it was indeed related to the "1+1=2" belief in the sampling theory. I was wrong as I overlooked the limitation of the theory, i.e. it only works perfectly in the ideal situation. It would compromise under real world situation.
Now we run into a serious problem, a conflict between your claim of a “
background in physics” and your quoted assertion. Someone with a background in physics knows that pretty much all physics is limited by conditions, even 1+1=2 is conditional. For example, 1 star plus 1 star can equal 1 star (but of combined mass of course). Virtually all physics breaks down in black holes or before the Big Bang and the vast majority of physics is conditional under less extreme conditions, IE. There are conditions under which it does not work well or at all. In other words, someone with a background in physics could not be ignorant of limitations or conditions because it’s a fundamental part of physics and is definitely always a fundamental part of all practical applications of physics.
This shows to me again that our deep beliefs regarding concepts lik the "1+1=2" or "universal truth" could be "correct but absolutely"
What “our”? It is only YOUR incorrect deep beliefs in a “universal truth”, it is not ours, neither is it someone’s with a background in physics and again, even 1+1=2 has conditions!
Everything is solved. My critical thinking helps me again. It never fails.
That is a contradiction! You have not solved everything, in fact you haven’t even begun to solve anything at all, beyond the obvious that everyone else already knows or should know. Practical engineering does have “
compromises under real world situations” but that obviously does NOT solve everything, the next obvious and logical step is: What are those compromises and what practical impact or relevance do they have? However, you have NOT taken that next step, you simply stopped and bleated for pages about what perfect means.
In other words, you are delusional! Your thinking is NOT “critical thinking” and it has not helped you, it has failed you. By you own quoted definition of critical thinking (from Wikipedia), “
Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations and arguments …”, it is NOT arriving at one fact (that digital audio is not absolutely perfect in practice), stopping there and ignoring all the other available facts, especially as it is so logical and obvious that there are other relevant facts. Instead of investigating and “
analysing the available facts”, you just stopped at one fact and then spent all your efforts in concocting fallacies and falsehoods to support your erroneous conclusion. That’s a perfect example of confirmation bias and the exact opposite of critical thinking. Hence why you MUST be delusional to believe you are employing critical thinking or, you are just lying about it all!
And that is only one example. For instance, your thinking has lead you to arguing in a sound science discussion forum against the proven/demonstrated science when you have a self-admitted kindergarten level of understanding. In contrast, actual “critical thinking” would lead to the realisation that arguing from a position of ignorance is fallacious!
To be honest, you guys really crack me up no offense
. I don't know since when I became an AI-driven BOT.
He is an AI BOT?
AI (to be exact Co-pilot) did help me to gather a lot of info. I know my knowledge is very limited; I need an assistant to help me to find information for me.
No offence but you crack us up! No one stated you are an AI Bot, so that is yet another strawman argument and if that’s not enough; ironically, you have just admitted/confirmed what we did actually state we suspected!
I used co-pilot to help me to gather the information but I use my own analytical skill to analyze the information and performed the calculation myself to ensure that I can do it myself. (well... I should have just blindly copied the answer from Co-Pilot as my own calculation was in the wrong unit).
What did I demonstrate? I hope I demostrated that I didn't just copy-and-pasted without thinking (otherwise, I would provide my answer in the correct unit).
Perfect! What you demonstrated is that your “
own analytical skill to analyse the information” is insufficient due to you having a kindergarten level of understanding, that you did effectively copy-and-paste without thinking, that your thinking is fallacious and that you are incapable of learning, despite your false claims to the contrary:
Regardless of which unit you used, your answer was still WRONG, neither -30dSPL nor your same answer expressed in micro-pascals can actually exist and despite explaining this to you at least twice, you refuse to learn, you just keep repeating the same INCORRECT answer. Worse still, you falsely claim your answer is wrong because it uses the wrong unit and you (conveniently) ignore the fact that it is wrong regardless of the unit, but at least you admit this is all your own “thinking”! lol
G