OP
audiofilet
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2021
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 38
As far as I know, not scientifically, however that's pretty much the point.
As far as I know, not scientifically, however that's pretty much the point.
True.Some people say that the earth is flat because they percieve it as flat, doesn't mean that it's true.
That is not the case here.
If we accept that the reason why so many people are convinced of being able to perceive high res audio differently, cannot be explained with current science,
Not at all. In contrast, you are dismissing why the human experiences.You are choosing to dismiss the human experience.
Not without proper controls.Information acquired by observation is the literal definition of empirical evidence.
Well, it's not a claim, simply an observation.Absolutely right.
If a claim can't be demonstrated, it can be dismissed until it can. That's the job of those making the claim, not those who believe it to be silly.
Once you move from anecdote to evidence, we have something to talk about (on this forum at least). Until then, you are going over well trodden ground.
That IS a claim.Well, it's not a claim, simply an observation.
Information acquired by observation is the literal definition of empirical evidence.
If you honestly can't tell the difference between a claim and an observation, this topic is probably not for you lol.That IS a claim.
"Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law."The literal definition of empirical evidence is observation that is independently repeatable.
It's not that hard. People here can give you a downsampled, properly noise-shaped, 16/44.1 version of the high-res files, and you can then ABX with Foobar to find out if you can "perceive" the difference. It's not rocket scienceObviously, myself and many others don't have the time and resources to conduct any legitimate research, but I believe we should all at least afford each other the respect of having an opinion.
Oh, It's not me not knowing the difference.. it's the exact opposite. Citing Empirical evidence when we're talking about observation and claim is quite useless. from: https://www.westga.edu/~mmcfar/ClaimsversusObservations.htmIf you honestly can't tell the difference between a claim and an observation, this topic is probably not for you lol.
"Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law."
Empirical evidence - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Observations: An empirical or practical observation about the text that is obvious, conclusive and not debatable
Claims: Claims are theoretical statements (derived from a hypothesis or driving theoretical question) that are debatable, matters of interpretation, and therefore require justification and elaboration
Anecdotal evidence is a factual claim relying only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner
The result of such a test would be irrelevant, given that we don't even understand what exactly it is that might allow people to perceive this difference.It's not that hard. People here can give you a downsampled, properly noise-shaped, 16/44.1 version of the high-res files, and you can then ABX with Foobar to find out if you can "perceive" the difference. It's not rocket science
The result of such a test would be irrelevant,
So is the constant recycling of straw men.This practice of only partially quoting people or completely out of context, seems quite dishonest and lazy.
There must first be a theory explaining this phenomenon,
That's very plausible, but it might also not be.
The whole point is that you can rule it out, by doing said ABX test.That's very plausible, but it might also not be.
Like many others I'm simply describing an observation that I've made. Whether we are all victims of confirmation bias remains to be determined by science, but of course I can't rule it out.
Absolutely, unequivocally incredible.
Theren isn't just a difference, it's a different universe.