At one point sunjam was addressing whether he was an AI bot, or he was just utilizing AI to come up with all his answers. At this point, what is the difference? He's able to lasso a few folks to engage with his fallacies and keep on with this thread. When I've engaged, he pretty much confirmed he knows nothing about medical science (including psychology) no matter his claims. The more anyone will engage, I'm sure he'll still claim he's knowledgable about all these subjects and can teach all of us something.
Thanks for your feedback.
"
At this point, what is the difference?" <=== I agreed that is not much difference as my answers are
factaul no matter I was an AI bot or not
Multidisciplinary Subject
I fully understand some people cannot master subjects that are
multidisciplinary in nature. It required the mastering of multiple subjects that are involved, e.g.
Physics,
Psychology,
Computer Science are heavily involved for digial audio / audio science. No wonder it is very hard to come by a real audio science expert on any audio science forum. It is like neuroscience, it is very difficult to master it as it requires the knowledge of many
vary different subjects.
To make it clear again, I am at most at "primary level" for audio science. Having said that, I thought we discussing
facts related to audio science here. Am I correct?
Or are we, in fact, focusing on discussing
someone's mastery of certain subjects?
From my point of view, I don't care who speaks the facts. Even a primary school kid could be
my teacher if he shows me something that I don't know. I would
not consider facts as garbage just simply because of the speaker is a primary school kid. Correct?
I don't think people
who have critical thinking would consider a primary school kid
cannot show any fact in his comments for an on-line discussion. Have you ever encountered any kid who is considered as "smart kid"?
0.63 micro pascals does not exist? Hmm...
-23.7dBSPL is the figure generally accepted I believe, although it varies a bit by temp, altitude and humidity of course, a fact @sunjam appears unable to comprehend, presumably because his virtual assistant didn’t consider it. I’m not quite sure how you arrived at your figure but it would make MicroSoft’s anechoic chamber measurement and a handful of other chambers, impossible to achieve without pumping the air out of the chamber. Either way, producing noise+distortion artefacts at -30dBSPL isn’t possible, even without considering the performance of transducers.
Yes, you are 100% correct as I am not able to comprehend how "
0.63 micro psacals does not exist" because I don't agree 1.000=1.001
Brownian motion and pressure:
There is a lot I don't fully understand about this. This is the first time I see Brownian motion mentioned in acoustics (or I have heard about this but I have completely forgotten about it). Do you know how this -23.7dBSPL is derived? Who, where and when has accepted this -23.7dBSPL figure?
Brownian motion in fluids, as far as I know, obeys -6 dB/octave spectrum (Brown noise has got its name from this), but the equations expressing Brownian motion in air seems to lead to +9 dB/octave spectrum! It is "violet" motion rather than "brown":
RMS pressure = (8𝜋𝜌kT*(f2^3-f1^3)/(3c))^0.5 => Power Spectral Density ∝ f^1.5
"
This is the first time I see Brownian motion mentioned in acoustics" <=== same here. I found his idea is pretty interesting.
Let's look at what's Brownian motion:
I remember you were asking why "
wouldn't -30 dB SPL and 0.63... micro pascals exist" as shown below:
Sorry about my laziness to try and find your explanation (for all the AI stuff and what not), but why wouldn't -30 dB SPL and 0.63... micropascals exist? Am I losing my mind?
And
@gregorio was explaining to you with the idea of Brownian motion.
Given the definition of Brownian motion as shown about, do you think 0.63 micro pascal is possible? Does 0.63 micro pascal
really not exist? Hmmm...
I can see
at least two situations that could exist
1. close to vacuum
2. cold enough to slow down the random motion of particles
BTW, I thought the
Ideal Gas Law is taught in high school physics. No?
Or the high school teachers, these days, teach a
pseudo science version of the Ideal Gas Law in high school? i.e. the "correct
but not absolute" version of the Ideal Gas Law?
Mis-leading materials used in High School
The more I digged into the
influence of the misleading claims in the Monty's video, the more I found
it is terrifiying .....
I just found out yesterday that a lot of high school students DID watch that video as
a learning material for their classes related to digital audio. I checked with them and they were tricked (or manipulated) into believeing those pseduo science claims without a second thought...
I am really shocked to see how the video is poisoning high school students into believing that "Hi-Res is useless". I thought it was just in audio science forums....
All of a sudden, a sentence popped up in my mind "With great power comes great responsibility"
...
Playing Games?
It’s been clear what he is doing for almost a week. And it was clear where he was headed even before that. I don’t know why anyone would take a poster seriously when it’s so blatantly obvious he’s playing games. I have to conclude that he isn’t the only one who likes to spin his wheels and waste time.
Isn't it fun to learn with games? I found classic teacher / students setup/environment is pretty boring. Agree?
Reasoning fallacy example?:
Let's look at the following:
TBH, I read the calculation of it many years ago but don’t recall where exactly. It’s typically quoted roughly, Eg:
https://interestingengineering.com/science/quietest-room-world-sound-goes-die - “
The absolute minimum sound that can be experienced in any atmosphere as theorized by mathematicians is -23dB, or Brownian motion.”
Or
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170526-inside-the-quietest-place-on-earth -
“It gets close to the limit of what should be possible to achieve without creating a vacuum – the noise produced by air molecules colliding with each other at room temperature is estimated to be about -24 decibels.”
G
@gregorio is attempting to show with scientific evidence that there is an absolute minimum sound.
I don't know how this is related to the
scientific evidence about "people cannot hear the difference between Hi-Res or CD" <=== I am not sure if
@gregorio want to support such claim with the idea of "absolute minimum sound"
Concept 1: there is an absolute minimum sound (e.g. the "
min" dB)
Concept 2: you cannot hear the difference between Y dB and Y + '
min' dB because the absolute minimum sound is '
min' dB
Is concept 2
supported by concept 1?
Critical Thinking? Do we have it?
One should be critical when reading sources like this. Not because the writers want to mislead the readers, but because the writers are not experts of a specific field like this (they are just people writing articles. They may have scientific background of a sort at best) and may write misleading things unintentionally. That's why I try to understand this topic well enough myself to be able to fact-check these claims myself, but the math/physics behind this is rather complex, perhaps not beyond my mental capabilities, but at least it requires time. I also find this interesting, because I never knew Brownian motion would be so close to human threshold of hearing!
Cool, I really love your rely. I think audio science needs more people like you who have excellent critical thinking. Please do comment more to share your view. Yeah!
Cheers!