Wow. What 'should' art be, in your view, I wonder?
Hard to tell. IMHO art is totally out of science scope, it is something we express ourselves with and something we enjoy in. Unlike that, science and egnineering is something we should make use of.
Wow. What 'should' art be, in your view, I wonder?
This sounds very reasonable to me, but there should be a wide consensus on this if there is a message to be send to consumers and audiphiles to start pressing manufacturers to stop fooling people around with HiRes, DSD and all other useless stuff and instead start manufacturing reasonably priced stuff that will meet these specs.
As an engineer I've learned the scientific base (basis) for many things is a little shaky... Not useless, but often a starting point, not the end-all-be-all.
Because a scientific consensus reliably persuades people against embracing nonsense and snake oil? I wish it were so.
Hard to tell. IMHO art is totally out of science scope, it is something we express ourselves with and something we enjoy in. Unlike that, science and egnineering is something we should make use of.
Shits complicated, you investigate and test but things seldom oblige to give you clear outcomes ..,
The fault of science?
I don’t think so.
So no scientist should pursue knowledge for the pleasure of it, or for its own sake, but always with the goal of making a 'useful product' from it?
It’s no one things fault ..,If the outcome is not clear it's not the fault of science, it's the fault of testing.
You have not hung round many academics have you , It’s a whole heap of messing about , the object of the excise being avoiding getting a real job lolIMO, a true scientist should believe in his work to produce practical outcome, the same as true artist should believe to make an exhibition where people could come and enjoy his/her work.
Invariably, when I've encountered someone who says eye-popping stuff like 'I don't read fiction, why would I? It's not true' -- and I have -- they've been engineers. Also, IME they are over-represented in the anti-evolution and anti-climate-change factions of those 'debates', which I've followed for decades.
It would never be so for all people. Although probably 100% of the scientists agree that Earth is round there will always be people believeing otherwise.
I've been around a lot of engineers and most of us read fiction. "Invariably" may depend upon your sample size. The only one I recall saying something like that was an uncle who was a real estate guy, no engineering background. Most of us get smacked upside the head by reality every day so reading a little fiction, and often science fiction, is a pleasant break.
Anyway, this type of discussion is just not worth it to me, heading to one of those "religious" debates and as an analog designer I have to maintain a less-rigid viewpoint on most science and engineering. Seen science and engineering be wrong too many times to think there is an absolute and forever exact answer...
Probably, but I have yet to encounter a normal playback situation in which it was either noticeable or any problem at all. I normally play 5.1 channel hirez from a PC in DSD64 converted on the fly to 356k PCM, downrezzed to 176k, then EQed by Dirac. Any processing or DSP latency is immaterial, even when DSD256 is the input. File access from the NAS at play start seems to be the major latency delay.DSP latency when playing back higher resolution is a bit lower, isn’t it?
Captive research funded and conducted by individual manufacturers with a vested interest has a hard time being believed - science or marketing hype?. That, rather than your scenario, is I think why they generally do not publish, even if they have conducted “good” scientific research internally.The reason there's no consensus is pretty simple. Funding.
There's not any extra money to be made in telling people CD rez is fine. The evidence we already have suggests that the difference is non-existent to very small. Those who could profit potentially profit from conclusive data in favor of hi rez usually either don't want to risk money on definitive trials or already have religious objection to proper testing.
Plus, even if there was conclusive testing showing benefits to hi rez the profit might not be all that impressive anyway. The audiophile industry already has no problem raking it in hand over fist on verifiably false claims so printing more glossy brochures and having marketing find an untapped pantheon of dead gods to name their new power cord line after will probably yield a better return of investment.
This kind of thing might as well be market research or R&D. Next to no one outside of the audiophile hobby cares about it so it rarely get university or government funding as basic science research.