Why you can't trust audio measurements

[gregorio]

A big problem with falsehoods is that often people who have internalized them won't unlearn them easily. If it was easy to correct these falsehoods, these discussions would be much much sorter than 8 pages long!

TBH, it is typically fairly easy to correct (or rather, refute) these falsehoods. Whether the poster then accepts their assertions were falsehoods, unlearns them and therefore stops repeating them, is another matter entirely. A Matter over which I typically have absolutely zero influence.

All I can do is refute the falsehood and repeat or further support/explain that refutation, if the falsehood is repeated.

G

 

[SoundAndMotion]

[1] Whether the poster then accepts their assertions were falsehoods, unlearns them and therefore stops repeating them, is another matter entirely. [2] A Matter over which I typically have absolutely zero influence.

[1] Oof! You're damaging my stuff!

[2] I disagree. I don't think it's a binary refute/ignore option. I think how you say it can dramatically influence the acceptance. "Oh, that's looks wrong. Don't forget facts a, b and c. If I can help further, let me know." works better than "Wrong! You just don't get it. How many times? This isn't the UserXYZ makes up non-facts forum; it's Sound Science!"

I've had experience using each form with you, with the first, civil interaction working well, but when I matched your condescending tone... well, you still post falsehoods about Shannon/Nyquist/Fourier. If you want to confirm this, we should continue in that thread, not OT here.

 

[bigshot]

People don’t argue science here. They argue people.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I would love to discuss, learn/teach, argue science with you! But you disparage science and scientists, say it's all about your living room, and whine that people are picking on you ("dogging you").

Next time you present a scientific argument (that interests me), I'll be sure to try to engage you on the science, and say nothing personal.

 

[bigshot]

Again, the same.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

So let's only continue with science...!

edit: let's go discuss Shannon in the Android Resampling thread, so we can correct some mistakes (not yours).

 

[old tech]

Archimago has posted a good discussion on the Golden Sound video and the value of audio measurements more generally.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/05/demo-software-de-clipping-of.html#more

 

[gregorio]

[1] Oof! You're damaging my stuff!

You should explain why but as you state, you should do so in the thread to which you’re referring.

[2] I disagree. I don't think it's a binary refute/ignore option.

Ah, you make up a false assertion and disagree with it. Potentially that might be valid in some cases but not in this case, because you are falsely attributing it to me! I didn’t state a “binary option”, you do know what the word “typically” means right?

cont …

 

[gregorio]

I think how you say it can dramatically influence the acceptance.

It can but IMHO, typically more in person than online and then still only sometimes. Many who come here have no intention of accepting anything which disagrees with their audiophile marketing driven beliefs, regardless of how you say it.

I've had experience using each form with you, with the first, civil interaction working well, but when I matched your condescending tone... well, you still post falsehoods about Shannon/Nyquist/Fourier.

Err, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You state that “how you say it can dramatically influence acceptance” but the one example you give, where you tried different ways, did NOT apparently influence acceptance! Why not give an example that actually supports your assertion, rather than the opposite? An obvious answer is that maybe you’re more interested in making a personal attack than in making a valid point?

(Incidentally, whether or not I am actually posting falsehoods about Shannon et al, you should continue in the other thread.)

G