I don't really agree with this analogy.
Quote from: saratoga on 20 February, 2012, 12:09:30 AMI don't really agree with this analogy.If I wanted to say 'an increase in sampling frequency is directly analogous to a decrease in THD' I would have said 'an increase in sampling frequency is directly analogous to a decrease in THD'
The purpose of discourse is communication, not the deliberate evasion or misconstruction of meaning.
Please do me the courtesy of focussing on the main thrust of my remarks rather than the trivialities of their presentation and not putting a construction on them contrived only to afford yourself the opportunity to disagree.
I think that I did above. Am I missing something in particular that you expect of me?
Cryptic bullshit. You got something to say, just say it.
192kHz, 384kHz,... they will never stop.
Quote from: saratoga on 21 February, 2012, 09:54:48 PMNo matter how big of a number you have people will eventually find a way to bullshit about a bigger one.Exactly. Some people prefer to believe in magic. They may even be wired that way. They wanted to believe when watching the X Files years ago, and they want to believe in magic today too. Education is our only hope. I've always thought that school kids should be taught logic and consumerism starting in in the first grade. Seriously.--Ethan
No matter how big of a number you have people will eventually find a way to bullshit about a bigger one.
I've tried to point out already that posts like this are counterproductive and to a degree constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quote from: wakibaki on 22 February, 2012, 04:21:25 PMI've tried to point out already that posts like this are counterproductive and to a degree constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy.To what degree would that be?This smacks of magical thinking.
You really imagine that having a whole load of people
It seems you just like to argue.
Do you honestly think the number of people on HA communicating on the topic in precisely the way you think is detrimental constitutes a "whole load of people"?
In case you didn't catch it, I'm looking for numbers and now you've evaded my request for specifics by giving yet more generalities.
FYI, this forum routinely goes out of its way to demonstrate how high resolution provides no audible benefit every bit as much as it makes fun of people who either can't understand it or refuse to understand it.
If we were to tell people that they already have all they could desire with two-channel audio, would you be happy with that or would we then be harming the situation since people like to do the opposite of what they are told?
If we were to tell people that they already have all they could desire with two-channel audio, would you be happy with that
would we then be harming the situation?
people like to do the opposite of what they are told
If you were to tell people that they already have all they could desire with two-channel audio I would say that you have an inaccurate view both of people's desires and of the capabilities of multi-channel audio.
Darwin's theory about evolution of species was not supported numerically when first posited. Perhaps you'd like to suggest on that basis that it is inaccurate?
How wonderful for things to be so black and white. I often wonder how I would feel about the subject if I hadn't reviewed countless hundreds of posts by people who argue in favor of increased resolution.
You want an argument with numbers in it?Every person sitting over a keyboard dripping on about how 'nothing's ever going to change' is one (1) more person not getting down and putting their shoulder to the wheel in the conviction that things are going to change.