[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes I did mean that. No one has said otherwise. Precisely, I'm advocating the intricate complexity of mechanisms encoded in the whole genetic machinery of humans, over and above a simplistic interpretation of DNA being just sequences that tell how to make proteins.

Exactly. Mapping the human DNA is akin to dissecting a corspe, we have to know how all the genes function in vivo before we can start playing God. Gene function at the molecular level isn't the realm of biologists, no offense but Biology is nothing compared to real physical science like chemistry and physics. The biochemists and physical chemists with their NMR and computational protein simulations will uncover more about the human genome than some biologists theorizing about the "future" of mankind. You have to learn to differentiate between the acedemia self serving B.S. in science vs the real truly emperical stuff. Science is nothing without experiementations to backup hypothesis.

 

[Crowbar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif 9/10 out of ten the guy with all the answers writing books being sold at Borders is not much of a scientist rather a theorists.

Once again you're BSing. The biologists I referenced are Nobel Prize winners for their work in genetics. What's not experimental? Experiments proved Watson's idea about the structure of DNA was correct, and so on, these are not random theories without evidence, unlike your assertions. Next thing you'll claim evolution is just a theory. I have an acquaintance biochemist that founded a biotech company in my city whose main business is exactly the type of simulation you mentioned, and he agrees with my views.
In the end, nothing of what I have said here addresses my argument that without some type of selection, the gene pool will degrade over time. This is my core argument and you've not managed to touch it. All you're saying is that a solution will be very hard without abuse, but that is not an actual counterargument, for ****'s sake!

 

[Buggs]

Linkl

 

[Buggs]

Link

 

[tiggers]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buggs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Link

What's the big idea posting op-amp information in a thread on genetics?

you'd think this thread would be a sticky or something?

 

[Crowbar]

Maybe his point was that the thread was so off-topic, that he made an off-topic post in yet another direction.

One paper that I think was mentioned here before but didn't get much discussion is http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/...%20testing.pdf
It's Hawksford proposition of a distortion metric that seems significantly better than THD/IMD (though there isn't a related human study to see how well his metric correlates with perception).

So, anyone have any comments on that? It would be interesting to try to run one's own amplifiers through such a testing procedure.

 

[Freq Band]

Forgive us if we outsiders are squishing your amoebic enertia.
---------
When reading the first post in this thread (PPL), I came upon this section and link:
Quote:

Soundstage magazine describing how they test Amplifiers http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...amplifiers.htm

...and assumed the link would apply to the testing of how an amp "sounds".
Silly me. Of course it was about the electrical testing they were speaking of.
My mind was somewhere else.

What is the end use of an amplifier, or any other audio component ?
Did you answer.....as a means of listening to music ?
Shouldn't the equiptment's final purpose be the proper place to judge it ?

And once it has been deemed "worthy"......

......shut off the lights, ...........

and listen.........

to the music.


-------------
see my thread and unscientific amp comparison blind tests:
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233146

=FB=

 

[Crowbar]

Sure, but you have to shut off the lights before you listen, a blind test is in order. Measurement people are indeed mistaken, in that their mistake is they measure with equipment that is not the human ear. But when you know which amp is playing, you are measuring with not just your ear as well--you are measuring partially with your psychological bias.

 

[peelax]

Quote:

I kind of agree, but what would actually happen if there is no screening? Such a large number of people will become such a burden on society it will not be able to sustain them? If that was the case then natural selection would come back into play as anarchy took over. If you do screening and mess it up then a disease could come along and wipe everyone out. The lack of gentic diversity could have serious consequences, we need alternative thinkers who verge on insane. Either way its pretty much the same outcome. I'm not sure you can really say (at the moment) that given the big picture it would be a good idea to do anything, or ever do anything, over doing nothing.

 

[ppl]

As intriguing as the forgoing off topic discussion is I am going to refer you guys to this Link for some more thinking on the Amplifier Genome project. Some people operate primarily in the "Subjective domain"

 

[melomaniac]

see here for some engineering info and tests

 

[OblivionLord]

Im personaly all for what sounds good to my ears regardless if its subjective or objective.

 

[6RS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OblivionLord /img/forum/go_quote.gif Im personaly all for what sounds good to my ears regardless if its subjective or objective.

2x that! And I do not need double-blind tests to build my judgement.

 

[kilgoretrout]

Where can I find objective information on different DAC and how DACs across different price ranges compare with each other.

 

[tldoxmf87]

Thanks for the good information!