I don’t know what your intentions are, but I am assuming you are just here to troll people and mislead them with facts you are limited to measure with your equipment.
How can you not know what my intentions are when this is the Sound Science forum and I’ve stated my intentions. And, how can you assume something contrary to what I’ve stated? How do you know what equipment I have and what it’s limited to measuring? And lastly, clearly some of my most recent posts in this thread are about the semantics of the term “Hearing”, so nothing to do “with facts I am limited to measure” anyway!
I hope people will see your post patterns in this forum.
Me too. I hope they will see yours too!
It has never in your life accured to you that the graphs and measurments you are looking at is 2D…
Duh, of course that’s never occurred to me, because some of the graphs and measurements I look at are 3D (Waterfall plots for example), why would I look at a 3d graph as if it were only 2d? And when it comes to actual 2d graphs or measurements, how many dimensions do you think I’m looking at or should be looking at? You don’t seem to know what a graph is!
How would you measure layers, depth and holographic experience in Hz?
An analogue cable transfers an analogue signal and an analogue signal does not have any layers, depth, holographic or any other sort of “experience”. Obviously we cannot “measure in Hz” (or in anything else) something that a cable doesn’t have. You might as well ask: ”how do you measure the translucency of ghosts in decibels?” or “how do you measure the speed that mermaids can swim in kilograms?”!
Im getting tired of your “actual facts” when you can’t even stand(measure) behind what you say.
If you’re getting tired of the actual facts then you’re in the wrong forum, because that what this forum if for and, we weren’t discussing my measurements but the measurements of someone else. Of course I can and do stand behind what I say (and measure)!
I encourage people to stay open-minded
As this is the science forum, then we HAVE TO encourage people to be sceptical of any claim and not be open-minded to false claims which are contradicted by science/the facts.
and learn from their experience/placebo
Surely the very first thing that should be learnt “from their experience/placebo”, before anything else is learned, is that it is an experience/placebo, rather than some real physical property of an analogue signal or acoustic sound wave?
rather like you looking blind-minded on measurments that don’t even measure the human ear perception
Again, we’re discussing analogue cables, more recently a measurement of analogue cables, and cables do not have any “human ear perception”, they only have an analogue signal, so the only thing we can measure is that analogue signal or the sound produced when that signal is transduced into a sound wave (which also does not have any “human ear perception”). All we have to do is then compare that/those measurements with the well established thresholds of human hearing and/or the claims being made.
Typical experts hiding behind their science and measurements.
We’re not hiding behind “science and measurements”, what do you think analogue and digital audio is, if it’s not science and measurements? You think maybe they were discovered at the bottom of a mine or growing on some tree?
Predictable conversations with no real content about sharing true perception and thoughts.
Again, Duh! Of course it’s predictable that in a sound science discussion forum we would discuss sound science rather than “sharing perceptions and thoughts” that are contrary to the science
Your stubborn attitudes was left in the late 90s
Our stubborn attitudes were never “left”, we are very stubborn about proven/demonstrated/established facts and science, such as the Earth isn’t flat, 1+1=2 and numerous others. Your stubborn attitude was left in the late 90s though, roughly the late 1690’s when modern science was invented!
… because of a prisoned mindset, locked to “how you should feel” by numbers.
What do you think digital audio is, if it’s not just numbers? Plus, this is a strawman argument anyway, because no one is arguing how those numbers should make you feel!
The ONLY way I can see why ALL the above wouldn’t be obvious, is if someone had little/no understanding of audio measurements or of science. BUT surely no one would be stupid enough to come to an actual sound science discussion forum with such little understanding of audio measurements or science and argue or insult others about it?
G
