ralphpnj;684211 Wrote: > I disagree to a degree with first part of this statement. Several > members have presented factual evidence to support their > claims/beliefs. Believing in something based on factual evidence is > entirely different from believing in something which goes against the > facts. There is no equivalence between the two and I'm sick and tired > of having people declare that the two beliefs are equally valid. In the > US we hear this kind of nonsense day in and day out in the world of > politics, an area where science and logic are often completely > ignored. > > The playback of recorded audio is based on science and works because of > well founded scientific principles. Anything which clearly contradicts > the established laws of science can and should be treated as nonsense. > Granted there are many grey areas within known science but there are > also many, many very well understood areas as well. When a snake oil > vendor is trying to sell a worthless product which can be clearly shown > to violate some of the well understood laws of science their defense is > ALWAYS that the product works because it somehow working within one of > those grey areas of science. To which I cry BS! > > For example the crackpot authors of that ridiculous series on computer > audio now running in TAS do exactly what I stated above and it is not, > nor should it ever be, an acceptable defense. > > I may sound harsh but whenever I think that I am being to rigid I just > think back to something a very wise professor of thermodynamics once > taught me: if someone is try to promote or sell a perpetual motion > device the simplest and easiest way to debunk their device is to show > that violates one or more of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. > And these devices ALWAYS one or more of these laws.
And yet still people are trying to build perpetum mobiles :) now they call it free energy . God response btw, there is sometimes no consensus or compromise to be had. how to compomise with flat eart believers should we settle for slightly concave ;) politicians sometimes do that anyway which is sad. Society is swarming over with this BS from all directions not only in hifi, if your not already doing it you should support some scepticist organisation I do that . It's the only charity I give money to as it is vital that science and knowledge and reason survives the current storm of stupidity like creatonism and " intelligent design " New Age and other BS. Otherwise we are in for another dark age imo. back on topic. I did like that TAS tread. Take the wav-flacexperiment are so close but also so very far away , here is why. TAS wav-flac-wav experiment reading the article you notice that they actually did checksums and they where corect so wav=wav and the files are the same, and yet they proclame that there is a diference ! These two conclusion are mutually exclusive only one can be correct either the checksum is wrong or the subjective listening test is skewed, both can not be true at the same time it's impossible from basic principles. in the wav-flac-wav case the corect answer is there in thier own data set for everyone to see, and yet they are incapable of seing it rigth in front of them !? How can they think like that ? What is wrong . -- Mnyb -------------------------------------------------------------------- Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
