What is going on with audioSCIENCEreview…

[notsodeadlizard]

Is this strictly true? The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a combination of products, superconducting electromagnets, the accelerator ring, etc, in one 27-kilometre product. I would say that all the scientists studying the effects of the collision of particles are finding it very interesting.
Products interact with the natural world and scientists study this interaction.

Thank you.
By the way, I was there, in the collider itself, spent two exciting weeks.
But it's not about that.
The collider as a tool is not used to study artifacts. No one uses a collider to check the motor power, noise level and fuel consumption declared by the moped manufacturers.
The collider is used to study the fundamental properties of matter.

 

[caught gesture]

Fortunately for all of us, science does not study artifacts,

artefact
/ˈɑːtɪfakt/

noun
plural noun: artifacts

1. 1.
   an object made by a human being, typically one of cultural or historical interest.
   "gold and silver artefacts"
   
   
2. 2.
   something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.
   "the curvature of the surface is an artefact of the wide-angle view"

Artifacts would have to be part of a scientific study even if only to eliminate their influence on the subject of the study.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

artefact
/ˈɑːtɪfakt/

noun
plural noun: artifacts

1. 1.
   an object made by a human being, typically one of cultural or historical interest.
   "gold and silver artefacts"
   
   
2. 2.
   something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparativeor investigative procedure.
   "the curvature of the surface is an artefact of the wide-angle view"

Artifacts would have to be part of a scientific study even if only to eliminate their influence on the subject of the study.

That's right, it's about the objects made by a human being.
About combs, toothpicks, bicycles, amplifiers, DACs, dog kennels, beer bottles, beer, and so on ad infinitum.
Science is not interested in all this, because it is all a single super-product of the chain "science -> engineering -> technology -> sales".
But for engineers, technologists and sellers, this is all very interesting, and interest is usually formed in the reverse order of the chain.
And only in exceptional cases some real in a good sense "psychos" are trying to commercialize some solutions that they consider beautiful regardless of their manufacturability, for example. It is thanks to such interesting people that we can buy, for example, incomparable, extremely non-technological ESLs.

 

[Doodski]

More people, more noise. But with a larger membership, comes a lot more signal. S/N ratio is maintained or even increased.



Engage effective filters to suit your requirements. Running any acquisition system's bandwidth 'wide-open' isn't a good idea. And averaging helps a lot with lowering the noise floor so the signal stands out.

Intriguing response that is unlike most anything I've ever encountered from you. Good idea. I'll filter and figure out some sort of inner brain flow chart that works for me.

 

[AdamG]

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

 

[Doodski]

Absolutely. I just need to occasionally remind myself that we are only discussing music playback equipment and not creeping fascism, climate change, inherent racial bias, inequality, pollution and a myriad of other subjects that are of far more importance.

Thanks everyone for the reality check!

If you have the itch to get something off your back/chest then perhaps a private chat with a member of your choosing would help.

 

[Matt Bell]

Thank you.
By the way, I was there, in the collider itself, spent two exciting weeks.
But it's not about that.
The collider as a tool is not used to study artifacts. No one uses a collider to check the motor power, noise level and fuel consumption declared by the moped manufacturers.
The collider is used to study the fundamental properties of matter.

So all the chemists who study the properties of man-made compounds aren't doing science?
And the tests of the effects and efficacy of man-made pharmaceuticals aren't scientific?

 

[Sashoir]

So all the chemists who study the properties of man-made compounds aren't doing science?
And the tests of the effects and efficacy of man-made pharmaceuticals aren't scientific?

I know absolutely nothing of fluid dynamics, acoustics, or auditory physiology, but I do know that if you are a scientist and not spending a pretty large proportion of your time on grant applications, there's a high probability you won't be "doing science" for much longer

 

[RF Air]

How did you measure it? Any data?

I can shed some light on this:

Relative Testing Devices in A-B Mode for measured luminary capture ratio of relative and empirical output. Data is inconclusive, subjective.

A and B Devices

 

[caught gesture]

If you have the itch to get something off your back/chest then perhaps a private chat with a member of your choosing would help.

Therapy by DM! I’m not at that point yet.

 

[ahofer]

More people, more noise. But with a larger membership, comes a lot more signal. S/N ratio is maintained or even increased.



Engage effective filters to suit your requirements. Running any acquisition system's bandwidth 'wide-open' isn't a good idea. And averaging helps a lot with lowering the noise floor so the signal stands out.

An intriguing AI application comes to mind. But you'd have to train it to avoid closed epistemic loops.

 

[egellings]

There are many available and generally accepted definitions for science and the scientific method.
But we're talking about something different.
We are talking about measuring (or estimation, it's better) the performance of artifacts, products that have already been made by man and not by nature.
There is almost no science here, there is pure engineering.
There is nothing wrong or offensive in this nuance, it's just a fact.

Scientists discover things; engineers put the discoveries to good use.

 

[BinkieHuckerback]

Engineers might discover things too. Scientists can then investigate them and propose explanations and predictions.

 

[caught gesture]

Scientists discover things; engineers put the discoveries to good use.

Or not. Atomic bombs!

 

[egellings]

Or not. Atomic bombs!

???... Those destructive devices seem to me to need tons of science & engineering to develop & deploy.

 

[pma]

I’m losing the signal in the noise.

So you have started another noise thread, right? Nothing better in mind?