Why do scientists want to prove we are an accident?

[inocente]

But that’s the funny thing, isn’t it? If natural science is “deliriously happy to leave room for doubt and alternatives when it might be wrong and new evidence could be found tomorrow” how come you and hecd2 blow your tops when pseudo/inferential knowledge is called into question for being so assumptive? :ehh:

Not blowing my top, just trying to show you you’re wrong.

At least we can test which bits exist with medicine using more methods than 1! Computers may be digital, but why should that matter to electrons?

Thing is, no one could invent a transistor let alone a chip containing millions of transistors without knowing how electrons behave. Of all the things you could have picked to try to further your argument, the electron was probably the worst possible choice because it’s behavior is known in such exquisite detail.

A funny thing, the digital vs analogue idea, and another one example among heaps which shows how the truth changes as science ‘changes it’s mind’. When CDs were huge, I remember the argument that digital gave more effective coverage of the range of sounds we could hear, and the missing elements covered by analogue were inaudible to the human ear.

You lost me, there’s nothing analog can do that CD can’t do better. If you prefer analog recordings, just process digital to kill all the low and high frequencies, add noise, wow and flutter, blur the whole image to knock out every last bit of detail, and severely compress the amplitude range. For a black vinyl sound, warm it up and add some crackle and pop. Analog is pathetic.

HD audio has been built into computers since the late 90s. Its main advantage is for recording engineers – any mixing and effects degrades quality, so recording and processing in HD leaves lots of room for the final downmix to not drop below CD quality.

(I know this stuff having done some mixing).

Incidentally, I don’t think there was ever a time when “CDs were huge”, what you remember sounds more like ye olde 78 rpm, and this may explain a lot.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Not blowing my top, just trying to show you you’re wrong.

Thing is, no one could invent a transistor let alone a chip containing millions of transistors without knowing how electrons behave. Of all the things you could have picked to try to further your argument, the electron was probably the worst possible choice because it’s behavior is known in such exquisite detail.

Is like saying we had no idea about gravity until Einstein discovered relativity. You don’t need to know the whole picture for your calculations to work! I don’t think I can put this in many more ways for you to endlessly continue to miss my point.

Still, I wasn’t especially focussing on the electron - hecd2 drove my general reference to sub-atomic particles to banging on only about electrons, presumably because of the highly developed degree to which their ‘movements’ have been ‘calculated’. Nonetheless, none of this detracts from something that’s missing from all this - that there are a host of other sub-atomic particles which are regularly being ‘discovered’ in ever-increasing proliferation in order to explain what would otherwise be anomalies in the movements of atoms and, presumably, electrons. All of which are only ever the result of calculations which do not work with whatever the pre-*existing */pre-*conceived * range of particles could account for… electrons are only the start of the inventory

You lost me, there’s nothing analog can do that CD can’t do better. If you prefer analog recordings, just process digital to kill all the low and high frequencies, add noise, wow and flutter, blur the whole image to knock out every last bit of detail, and severely compress the amplitude range. For a black vinyl sound, warm it up and add some crackle and pop. Analog is pathetic.

HD audio has been built into computers since the late 90s. Its main advantage is for recording engineers – any mixing and effects degrades quality, so recording and processing in HD leaves lots of room for the final downmix to not drop below CD quality.

(I know this stuff having done some mixing).

Incidentally, I don’t think there was ever a time when “CDs were huge”, what you remember sounds more like ye olde 78 rpm, and this may explain a lot.

Funny, but it’s startling how many times analogue recordings are attempted to be remastered digitally, apparently missing some of the *magic * of the orginial, if you don’t lose something. maybe everybody wants what is *presumed * to be noise?

Well, I suppose it has, although I wouldn’t say it was referred to specifically as HD until they started selling hardware and material in said format

Oh, the literalism! Anyway, so you’re saying HD CDs are a swizz, then, since presumably they provide nothing beyond what is worth listening to on a normal CD?

 

[inocente]

Is like saying we had no idea about gravity until Einstein discovered relativity. You don’t need to know the whole picture for your calculations to work! I don’t think I can put this in many more ways for you to endlessly continue to miss my point.

We’ve been arguing at cross purposes then. I thought you were saying you wouldn’t believe unless you saw it with your own eyes, that you needed the whole picture, along the line of:

I’d guess you don’t need electrons to exist for computers to work - you just need the reactions we’ve calculated as being attributable to the behaviour of electrons to occur reasonably efficiently

*Nonetheless, none of this detracts from something that’s missing from all this - that there are a host of other sub-atomic particles which are regularly being ‘discovered’ in ever-increasing proliferation in order to explain what would otherwise be anomalies in the movements of atoms and, presumably, electrons. All of which are only ever the result of calculations which do not work with whatever the pre-*existing **/pre-*conceived * range of particles could account for… electrons are only the start of the inventory

You young ‘uns, you want it all yesterday. You may need to wait until the exploration is complete before there’s a perfect picture, researchers don’t have divine powers the rest of us lack. As far as I know it’s still true that the particle zoo comes down to six quarks, six leptons and six bosons, and if these do turn out to be the building blocks for the entire universe, I’d have thought it’s a stunning intellectual achievement, not something to deride from the sidelines, but then maybe I’m easily pleased.

*Funny, but it’s startling how many times analogue recordings are attempted to be remastered digitally, apparently missing some of the *magic ** of the orginial, if you don’t lose something. maybe everybody wants what is *presumed * to be noise?

If you buy an audio editor then you can see the difference graphically for yourself.

The name HD was invented by the Intel marketing department to shift chips, and the salesman who coined “digitally remastered” might have reflected that the only way to get from an analog recording to digital CD is by (drum role, wait for it) … digitally remastering .

I think HD CD is pointless unless, maybe, if you have top notch hearing (you’re young and haven’t listened to too much loud stuff on headphones). But if you like analog then your preference is for a markedly lower frequency range and dynamic range than CD, while HD gives more, so I’d have thought it wouldn’t appeal to you.

Anyway, if you look at the cheap gear many bands use to make their music, which they don’t exactly treat kindly, it seems like a waste of money to think expensive audiophile gear might make it sound better. Imho the only thing that counts is how much your ears like it.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

We’ve been arguing at cross purposes then. I thought you were saying you wouldn’t believe unless you saw it with your own eyes, that you needed the whole picture, along the line of:

Actually, I wouldn’t really know… I *do * believe that the math represents a range of reactions which serve our purposes, but whether electrons etc. exist, I’m not really convinced - they may just be handy conceptualisations based on what our limited abilities provide us as possible reality…

You young ‘uns, you want it all yesterday. You may need to wait until the exploration is complete before there’s a perfect picture, researchers don’t have divine powers the rest of us lack. As far as I know it’s still true that the particle zoo comes down to six quarks, six leptons and six bosons, and if these do turn out to be the building blocks for the entire universe, I’d have thought it’s a stunning intellectual achievement, not something to deride from the sidelines, but then maybe I’m easily pleased.

I’m really not that young…

Well yes, I’m not disagreeing with the stun factor - doesn’t make it actually true, though does it?

If you buy an audio editor then you can see the difference graphically for yourself.

The name HD was invented by the Intel marketing department to shift chips, and the salesman who coined “digitally remastered” might have reflected that the only way to get from an analog recording to digital CD is by (drum role, wait for it) … digitally remastering .

I think HD CD is pointless unless, maybe, if you have top notch hearing (you’re young and haven’t listened to too much loud stuff on headphones). But if you like analog then your preference is for a markedly lower frequency range and dynamic range than CD, while HD gives more, so I’d have thought it wouldn’t appeal to you.

Anyway, if you look at the cheap gear many bands use to make their music, which they don’t exactly treat kindly, it seems like a waste of money to think expensive audiophile gear might make it sound better. Imho the only thing that counts is how much your ears like it.

Again, I doubt we can really identify every ounce of what is sound, to the point of being able to say with real knowledge that that digital standard covers our entire range of hearing. What is noise, anyway?