Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting

[lightminer]

I suppose it depends whether you feel greater wonderment at the thought of an all-powerful anthropomorphic deity breathing on a handful of dust (plurality of the world's spiritualities) or that we are made of the insides of exploding stars (science).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophsile

 

Jud, I'd love to talk about this more but alas I feel this isn't the appropriate place. Extremely briefly, what if both could exist? I work in science as do many of my friends and for a lot of us there is no conflict. The issue arises when religion attached to a non-metaphorical version of the bible (Oh, my God, the sun has sunspots, that means everything we believe is bogus!!!! Aaaaggghhhhhh!!!!! I'm mellllltttttiiiinnnngggggggg!!!!!!! Someone, quick, throw Galileo in hell before anyone reads his papers!!!! Hurry!!!!!) and from Galileo and Darwin (Darwin himself when he wrote Origin also saw no conflict) forward there became this big battle that was really more between certain Christian Churches and science. Buddhists and Hindus largely (there are many sects, however, so can't be 100% blanket about it) have no problem with science, nor Taoists, etc. Baha'is believe very firmly in both working together. The non-metaphorical Bible thing created a unique conversation that swept all of these things into that one apparent dichotomy and now dominates these discussions whereas for me the two completely go hand in hand. Happy to discuss further on PM. I've probably already gone too far and some large group will be already be annoyed at my post.

 

But what I most strongly want to suggest is that there is no necessary conflict between spirituality and science in my world view.

[jabbr]

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief https://www.amazon.com/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awd_xs_ihlmybZ4SBZ2K

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lightminer]

Right, in terms of building a connection between the two sides this is a friend, a Physicist/Cosmologist explaining one way of looking at it (and this can be streamed trough your systems ). Note I love Hitchens as well and all kinds of ways of looking at things.

 

[mmerrill99]

Yes -- none the f this is a failure of "science" per se, rather the very basic fact that while the current limits of neuroscience give us understanding if the cellular and basic physiologic processes that occur when audio is presented to the cochlea, we really don't have the slightest idea of how that arrives as our ability to perceive, discriminate, understand and enjoy music at a high level e.g. How a child could discriminate Bach from Bartok in an instant.

 

You can blindly measure but there isn't even a theory to get from electromagnetic theory to music theory.

 

This is perhaps akin to claiming that a $500 violin is the same as a Strad -- not quite the same but you get the point.

I wouldn't agree with "don't have a clue" but take it as valid hyperbole to express a viewpoint - the viewpoint that anyone who claims that current science has the answers to what we are hearing is badly mistaken - the people who claim this certainly don't have a clue but that isn't the fault of science, it's very much the fault of a group of people who try to invoke science in an attempt to validate their simplistic viewpoints.

 

Science is progressing & it is making progress in understanding the mechanisms at play at the heart of auditory processing. What people fail to realise/appreciate is that we are outliers as far as this is concerned - we, in this hobby, are very much concerned with the more esoteric areas of hearing/auditory processing that the research hasn't even come near to considering - they are still working on the basics.

 

So, agreed, it's not a failure of science but it's easy to fall into this trap when people purport to irresponsibly represent their simplistic ideas as having the full backing of science. Unfortunately, it's not just one or two individuals, there's a whole grouping of these people who do this.

[feline]

Am I wrong to say that Dac is not as critical in Pro Audio monitoring as it is for audiophiles.

AOIP breakout boxes are not expensive AM2, Amphenol Amphe-Dante RJ45r, DiGiGridQ. There cannot be any quality dacs inside these units at these prices. Maybe SQ is not as important in monitoring? Please explain.

[Ralf11]

 

people purport to irresponsibly represent their simplistic ideas as having the full backing of science. Unfortunately, it's not just one or two individuals, there's a whole grouping of these people who do this.

 

 

who?