databank said:

udo said:

.

I can hear that difference on my very very very basic and cheap computer speakers.

Just to be clear: you mean in a blind test?

If so, then OK, just makin' sure ^^

.

Did I write blind test?

I can hear stuff.

I did not say with every song, at every volume.

Please stop nitpicking at this wonderful hearing achievement.

Let's get back to the scheduled programming of official audio release of 'Prince and the Revolution Live'.

udo said:

databank said:

Just to be clear: you mean in a blind test?

If so, then OK, just makin' sure ^^

.

Did I write blind test?

I can hear stuff.

I did not say with every song, at every volume.

Please stop nitpicking at this wonderful hearing achievement.

Let's get back to the scheduled programming of official audio release of 'Prince and the Revolution Live'.

"I can hear stuff" is not an acceptable/convincing argument.

I mean if we were trying to make a scientific discovery -which we aren't-, it wouldn't be. This is the whole point of blind tests and double blind tests.

Now IDK your background, if you were a trained engineer I'd be more tempted to take your word for it than if you were a lawyer. Yet, that still wouldn't constitute evidence.

.

This said, you are right in saying this isn't the thread's topic, so back on tracks

.

On a sidenote to the OP, ripping the DVD's audio may be the best option: I'm pretty sure the files are higher quality there than on streaming, save Tidal or HDTracks if it's there.

fortuneandserendipity said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

databank said:

"I can hear stuff" is not an acceptable/convincing argument.

.

Sure.

Your reality is different from mine.

.

I mean if we were trying to make a scientific discovery -which we aren't-, it wouldn't be.

.

But still.

Even in science, opinions can differ.

.

Now IDK your background, if you were a trained engineer I'd be more tempted to take your word for it than if you were a lawyer. Yet, that still wouldn't constitute evidence.

.

Never claimed to be.

.

This said, you are right in saying this isn't the thread's topic, so back on tracks

.

On a sidenote to the OP, ripping the DVD's audio may be the best option: I'm pretty sure the files are higher quality there than on streaming, save Tidal or HDTracks if it's there.

.

DVD's seldomly have PCM tracks. Most are Dolby AC3. Perhaps DTS?

Both are compressed as far as I know.

Get the LD, it probably has a PCM track.

JoeyCococo said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Placebo Effect proves that human beings are more driven by emotion than logic. Or put another way. Why look for conspiracy when stupidity can explain so much? Actually that last part is quote from Goethe. But yeah, people really are that stupid over audio quality.

Why so angry?? This isn't important enough to get so upset You speak like someone who has listened to music through earphones your whole life or a Dr Dre pill.

Well you have a point. This is first world problem shit. But I think emotion superseding logic is the root cause of all the problems in the world. Chaplin got it wrong in the concluding speech to The Great Dictator about how bad, irrational behavior comes from thinking too much like a machine, rather than from the heart, from feelings. Feeling too much or desiring too much means we misjudge.

MP3s are great undeniably, just don't give any flac to me (all these numbers go to 11).

udo said:

databank said:

"I can hear stuff" is not an acceptable/convincing argument.

.

Your reality is different from mine.

.

If we can't agree on the existence of an independant, objective, and shared reality, why have any discussion about anything, then?

.

One thing we can agree about is that we should stop derailing this thread, though.

olb99 said:

udo said:

.

Your reality is different from mine.

.

If we can't agree on the existence of an independant, objective, and shared reality, why have any discussion about anything, then?

.

One thing we can agree about is that we should stop derailing this thread, though.

Or just rename the thread appropriately and delete all those pesky responses discussing the Prince and The Revolution Live audio release.

olb99 said:

udo said:

.

Your reality is different from mine.

.

If we can't agree on the existence of an independant, objective, and shared reality, why have any discussion about anything, then?

.

When I wrote that my reality is different then I did not write in what ways or to what extent.

Taking the statement as a black and white blanket statement to doubt your very raison d'être is kinda funny.

.

One thing we can agree about is that we should stop derailing this thread, though.

.

I guess we should look for that Prince and the Revolution Live LD, dump the PCM audio and 'tweak' it.

Yes, it might be in a closet here.

udo said:

olb99 said:

.

When I wrote that my reality is different then I did not write in what ways or to what extent.

Taking the statement as a black and white blanket statement to doubt your very raison d'être is kinda funny.

I would have replied something in the same vein as olb99. I assume you are familiar with the basics of epistemology and the scientific method, so you certainly know that these days, arguments such as "your reality is different from mine" or "even in science, opinions can differ" are being used to spread very dangerous ideologies, if not plain scientific lies. This is why I insist on methodology and approach: Flac and mp3 aren't a very important debate, but simply move the topic to medical treatments or global warming and you see where that leads.

.

My position of the subject is that if we all tried to adopt a rigorous approach to all things scientific (hearing frequencies is a very scientific subject), then we wouldn't be encouraging nonsense about other topics that have very real, sometimes vital consequences over our lives. If I accept that "I can hear it so it's my reality so it must be true" is a satisfactory explaination, then I tacitely accept that "global warming isn't real because I don't feel warmer", "voodoo exorcism is a medical treatment, because I feel better after a session" or, hell, "the Earth must be flat because it looks pretty flat to me" are also valid arguments.

.

We tend to still think it's not important, because we grew up in a pre-digital world, but in the digital age, relativism is a very, very dangerous thing, with very, very real political consequences. Any psychopath can end-up with millions of followers and have a very strong influence over them. The age of epistemic innocence is over.

.

Besides, opinions may differ in science, but it's not a valid argument in the context of this conversation, because it ignores the notion of consensus. Scientific consensus is pretty much the only way to distinguish certain from likely from unlikely from impossible. You're certainly aware of the fact that you would have a hard time finding a single researcher in cognitive science or psychology, let alone one in acoustic science, that would accept your certainty to hear a difference as evidence, and use it in a study. They would tell you they need to test your claim using a blind, or even better a double blind test, because this is what the consensus says about the method to use in order to obtain a valid answer to a question such as "can X hear Y?". And if anyone tells you any other way, either they're a fool or they think you're one yourself.

.

So IDK. Your reality may not be mine, but there IS a simple way to know subjectively whether you can hear something or you can't. You don't have to test yourself, but as long as you haven't, your statements are only worthy to yourself. It's basically just as if you were claiming "I can run faster than the world's champion, I know it". You can believe it, and maybe it's true, but can't possibly expect people to take your word for it, or even let you claim it without challenging you about it.

databank said:

My position of the subject is that if we all tried to adopt a rigorous approach to all things scientific (hearing frequencies is a very scientific subject), then we wouldn't be encouraging nonsense about other topics that have very real, sometimes vital consequences over our lives. If I accept that "I can hear it so it's my reality so it must be true" is a satisfactory explaination, then I tacitely accept that "global warming isn't real because I don't feel warmer", "voodoo exorcism is a medical treatment, because I feel better after a session" or, hell, "the Earth must be flat because it looks pretty flat to me" are also valid argumen

.

Simplifications galore.

You forgot that 'science' consists of differing opinions, differing facts even.

Yes, it is all not so factual as you think.

.

And that's a fact.

.

Same as the release of Prince and the Revolution Live.

Can you tell the difference between these MP3s or are your ears lying to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBgxJM7cGU

udo said:

databank said:

My position of the subject is that if we all tried to adopt a rigorous approach to all things scientific (hearing frequencies is a very scientific subject), then we wouldn't be encouraging nonsense about other topics that have very real, sometimes vital consequences over our lives. If I accept that "I can hear it so it's my reality so it must be true" is a satisfactory explaination, then I tacitely accept that "global warming isn't real because I don't feel warmer", "voodoo exorcism is a medical treatment, because I feel better after a session" or, hell, "the Earth must be flat because it looks pretty flat to me" are also valid argumen

.

Simplifications galore.

You forgot that 'science' consists of differing opinions, differing facts even.

Yes, it is all not so factual as you think.

.

And that's a fact.

.

Same as the release of Prince and the Revolution Live.

Gravity is not an opinion. Death is not an opinion. "1 + 1 = 2" is not an opinion. The shape of the Earth is not an opinion.

And whether one can hear the difference between mp3 and flac is not an opinion either, because it can be tested in ways that leave no room for doubt.

.

The very purpose of science is to be able to try and establish what is real and what isn't, i.e. to differenciate fact from opinion. So unless you elaborate, I don't really follow what you exactly mean when you say that "science consists of differing opinions", let alone "differing facts".

databank said:

udo said:

.

Simplifications galore.

You forgot that 'science' consists of differing opinions, differing facts even.

Yes, it is all not so factual as you think.

.

And that's a fact.

.

Same as the release of Prince and the Revolution Live.

Gravity is not an opinion.

.

Until a new, better explanation ('theory') appears.

.

Death is not an opinion.

.

It is. What is death? What happens? What is after death?

Why are people afraid to die?

.

"1 + 1 = 2" is not an opinion.

.

I guess you were not paying attention.

Currently, especially in the USSA,math is 'rayciss'.

.

The shape of the Earth is not an opinion.

.

That is why there is a group of people that believes in flat earth?

.

And whether one can hear the difference between mp3 and flac is not an opinion either, because it can be tested in ways that leave no room for doubt.

.

Sure, but it can also be tested in ways that leave doubt.

It all depends on my situation, the stereo setup, the material, the volume, the acoustics, etc.

.

The very purpose of science is to be able to try and establish what is real and what isn't, i.e. to differenciate fact from opinion. So unless you elaborate, I don't really follow what you exactly mean when you say that "science consists of differing opinions", let alone "differing facts".

.

You do not recognise that science is a continuous debate?

Gravity is not an opinion.

.

Until a new, better explanation ('theory') appears.

The existence of the phenomenon itself is not subject to debate, no "magic" can make gravity "disappear".

.

Regarding the understanding of the phenomenon, if we agree, as it seems, on the fact that scientific knowledge is "the state of the art of our knowledge at any given time, as validated by a strong consensus among experts", then you would probably admit that there is no point in debating how gravity works until serious research gives the physics community serious cause to question the current model, and that -if that were to happen- one cannot positively contribute to any such debate unless one knows enough about physics to undertand the debate properly.

.

Death is not an opinion.

.

It is. What is death? What happens? What is after death?

Why are people afraid to die?

Again, I was talking about the phenomenon of physical death (and, by extension, our certainties regarding what may or may not cause it). To take an example: if someone claims that ceasing to feed oneself won't kill you if you sit under the sunlight (I've read this online, no joke), there is no scientific debate about whether they're right or wrong: we know they're wrong, period.

.

Regarding life after death and all that, science can only reach a consensus about how a phenomenon works after it's reached a consensus about the existence of said phenomenon. In other words, you need an object to study. There currently is no object to study when it comes to the afterlife, so the only question science has been able to address so far was "do we have an object to study?", and sadly, the scientific consensus is that, so far, no such object has been found. In other words, understanding what happens after death is not a scientific question until you can first determine that something does happen (besides your body rotting, that is). It doesn't mean you cannot or should not believe that such a phenomenon exists, but until it's been established using scientific means, it's a belief (i.e. sheer speculation), not knowledge.

.

Regarding why we're afraid to die, I would have to look but I'm pretty sure evolution, cognitive and neuroscience specialists already have partial answers for that, it doesn't seem like much of a mystery. To simplify it to the extreme, individuals who fear danger (not actually, technically "death", because animals fear dangers too even if they don't understand death the way we do) live longer, breed more, and the "fear of death" program is reinforced generation after generations. Research has established that newborn babies have an instinctive fear (i.e. a pre-cabled cognitive algorythm) of spiders and snake, for example. Regardless, fear of death/danger is an established phenomenon, so there is an object to study, thus the possibility for answers.

.

"1 + 1 = 2" is not an opinion.

.

I guess you were not paying attention.

Currently, especially in the USSA,math is 'rayciss'.

I'm not sure if you're talking about that, but I've heard that some people claim science to be a Western conception. Maybe the way it is taught is, and can be improved depending on the "audience", but it is utterly absurd to claim the phenomenons and theories themselves do not apply outside of Western culture: 1 + 1 still makes 2 in Africa or China. But I don't want to go too far there, because I'm not entirely sure if this is what you mean.

The shape of the Earth is not an opinion.

.

That is why there is a group of people that believes in flat earth?

Ha! I'm glad you said this because you raise a very interesting point. Is it valid to consider that there is a debate when people who have no idea what they're talking about challenge things every expert agrees on? Who is this "group of people"? How many physicists, geologists, etc. among them? How many scientists of any discipline, even?

.

Any group of people can claim anything, but if they don't have solid scientific arguments, it doesn't qualify them to create a debate with scientists. These people are not challenging the consensus because they don't have the beginning of a serious piece of evidence that could convince anyone who understands astrophysics or geology.

.

So no, I'm sorry, but there isn't a debate currently taking place regarding the shape of the Earth, just a bunch of people making fools of themselves by claiming there is one, but no one takes them seriously enough to actually debate with them. If tomorrow, a group of 200 people goes online and start claiming that every European women under 40 is an alien in disguise, should I suddenly believe there is a scientific debate about whether my girlfriend is human? No. Or I'd be a damn fool.

.

And whether one can hear the difference between mp3 and flac is not an opinion either, because it can be tested in ways that leave no room for doubt.

.

Sure, but it can also be tested in ways that leave doubt.

It all depends on my situation, the stereo setup, the material, the volume, the acoustics, etc.

Yeah well, maybe that would be the difference between a physicist and a flat eather: the capacity to establish a solid protocol? What's the point of your "but", since you agree that it can be tested the right way? Why are we even discussing this? It can be tested, so there is neither a debate nor "opinions to have" about it.

.

The very purpose of science is to be able to try and establish what is real and what isn't, i.e. to differenciate fact from opinion. So unless you elaborate, I don't really follow what you exactly mean when you say that "science consists of differing opinions", let alone "differing facts".

.

You do not recognise that science is a continuous debate?

Of course it is, but it's a continuous debate among scientists, i.e. qualified people. People with an interest in science are, of course, welcome to join the discussion, but there are ways to differenciate between the next great theory in physics and the absurd hypothesis of a flat earther.

.

Certainly, as you said before, our whole conversation is made of simplifications, because our posts are too short for elaboration, but while I am not talking in absolutes and everything i say could be subject to some kind of moderation, it is important to differenciate between:

1/ a debate at the pub between friends who are not experts on Topic X (fun, but useless to science);

2/ disruptive attempts by small groups of unqualified people to try and spread epistemic chaos online, with pseudoscientific theories about Topic X (possibly dangerous, and useless to science); and

3/ a proper debate between the greatest specialists in the world on Topic X (science).

.

Science is a continuous debate between people who share solid knowledge about not only the object they study, but also about the method to reach any conclusion about it. And to challenge a consensus, you must first accept that there is one, understand how it was established and why, and be ready to come-up with serious, solid elements to challenge it.

.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional expert in the scientific method or epistemology, but it is a strong hobbie of mine, so I've read and listened to what many experts have to say about it. What I'm trying to regurgitate here is, hopefully, a proper (and necessarily simplified) translation of the consensus in these matters, not the expression of personal or marginal opinions.