Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[Blumlein 88]

There are quite a few posts in this thread to which the following is an appropriate answer.

 

[Miguelón]

There are quite a few posts in this thread to which the following is an appropriate answer.

View attachment 366202

Interesting point of view, I love science but there’s no evidence of being the best knowledge method of all possibles…

 

[Blumlein 88]

Interesting point of view, I love science but there’s no evidence of being the best knowledge method of all possibles…

And a list of other candidates? The Scientific method has created more knowledge than all other methods combined by a few orders of magnitude.

 

[NTK]

Interesting point of view, I love science but there’s no evidence of being the best knowledge method of all possibles…

You are not even wrong.

 

[Miguelón]

And a list of other candidates? The Scientific method has created more knowledge than all other methods combined by a few orders of magnitude.

Oh, thats true, but who knows if there is another better not yet discovered?

 

[pkane]

Oh, thats true, but who knows if there is another better not yet discovered?

I think we’ll have to wait for AI to discover one.

 

[antcollinet]

Oh, thats true, but who knows if there is another better not yet discovered?

When we've discovered one we can use it.

Until then, how about we stick to the one we have.

 

[pablolie]

Interesting point of view, I love science but there’s no evidence of being the best knowledge method of all possibles…

Science is the only approach to attain repeatable knowledge and models we can reuse. If it isn't science, it is the grey area of "belief"... and since beliefs can't be proven they help us zero in attaining knowledge until they are proven reliable/repeatable by scientific method.

 

[Miguelón]

Science is the only approach to attain repeatable knowledge and models we can reuse. If it isn't science, it is the grey area of "belief"... and since beliefs can't be proven they help us zero in attaining knowledge until they are proven reliable/repeatable by scientific method.

Can you prove there is no better method?

 

[pablolie]

And a list of other candidates? The Scientific method has created more knowledge than all other methods combined by a few orders of magnitude.

Belief is never knowledge. It is choice. Great if it helps the uncertainties of life that make you feel insecure. Terrible if you want to build a lasting intellectual framework.

I am human. We all have irrational beliefs somewhere in our lives. But to extrapolate personal beliefs into universal truths is the most embarrassing and stupid intellectual exercise anyone could ever embark on.

 

[Miguelón]

I think we’ll have to wait for AI to discover one.

We are an AI it depending on what you define as “artificial”. Perhaps created to know the answer to the Ultimate Question to Life, the Universe, and Everything, by a super type of mice…

 

[pablolie]

Can you prove there is no better method?

I just know you can't prove there's an alternative method that is better. "Belief" certainly isn't it, and belief is useless unless it is verified by scientific method.

And don't get me wrong, clearly the "scientific method" seems to regularly blow up in the internet propaganda age. Remember the superconductor hoax.

I'd just refer us to classical philosophy, the "love of wisdom", and especially epistemology, the practice of questioning how we think we know what we know. And audio isn't quantum physics, we understand the basics thoroughly, and the performance envelope clearly isn't that technically challenging anymore.

PS: And to me "wisdom" is the ability to tell apart knowledge from belief, and to not pester other people with the latter.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Oh, thats true, but who knows if there is another better not yet discovered?

The scientific method has dramatically expanded our understanding, far surpassing other approaches. And it's a fair point—maybe there are even better methods out there waiting to be discovered. However, the scientific method's adaptability and rigor make it incredibly effective. Just take how we develop and improve our audio gear. By applying digital audio theories through engineering, we've turned abstract ideas into the devices we use every day. Moreover, the way we continually assess and enhance the performance of this equipment is deeply rooted in these theories. It's this kind of ongoing refinement, a core aspect of the scientific method, that keeps pushing our technology forward.

 

[pkane]

Can you prove there is no better method?

Can you prove there’s no teapot in an orbit around Earth? (Look up Russell’s teapot)

 

[Miguelón]

But to extrapolate personal beliefs into universal truths is the most embarrassing and stupid intellectual exercise anyone could ever embark on.

This is precisely science… just replace “personal” by “collective” and you get its definition

 

[Miguelón]

Can you prove there’s no teapot in an orbit around Earth? (Look up Russell’s teapot)

I cannot, maybe it exists. Hope is Earl Grey, my favorite

 

[sonitus mirus]

Can you prove there’s no teapot in an orbit around Earth? (Look up Russell’s teapot)

I am certain it can be done, but it will take a lot of time and resources.

 

[danadam]

Can you prove there’s no teapot in an orbit around Earth? (Look up Russell’s teapot)

One of these days some NASA astronaut should bring a teapot with them and release out into the orbit ;-)

 

[Miguelón]

One of these days some NASA astronaut should bring a teapot with them and release out into the orbit ;-)

Never, impossible: NASA astronauts don’t believe in tea

 

[pkane]

One of these days some NASA astronaut should bring a teapot with them and release out into the orbit ;-)

That will be cheating.