darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, I think we agree about what the study involved and what its
> conclusions were. I'm just saying the result was no surprise!
I agree. But a lot of scientific research involves actually confirming
things that come as no surprise to anyone.
"To try to judge the real fr
Julf, I think we agree about what the study involved and what its
conclusions were. I'm just saying the result was no surprise!
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-57
darrenyeats wrote:
> For example, it's obvious someone who is against vaccines is very likely
> to be distrustful of the motives of the establishment and the health
> industry.
Just like someone who believes in UFOs is very likely to be distrustful
of the motives of the establishment and the sci
lrossouw wrote:
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/mariakonnikova/2014/05/why-do-people-persist-in-believing-things-that-just-arent-true.html
Sorry, rant mode on!
As usual, nothing new to be learned from such psychological studies.
Next, people who get burned have a pre-disposition not t
lrossouw wrote:
> What is interesting to me is that the effect works both ways. Peoples
> beliefs (good or bad) stop them from seeing/accepting the truth.
'Confirmation Bias' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In th
lrossouw wrote:
> I hope I do not stir with this New Yorker article but the thoughts seem
> very relevant. I do not want to have a debate about something else(
> e.g. whether the earth rotates the sun or not) but this is very good
> explanation why people do this kind of thing.
>
> What is int
I hope I do not stir with this New Yorker article but the thoughts seem
very relevant. I do not want to have a debate about something else(
e.g. whether the earth rotates the sun or not) but this is very good
explanation why people do this kind of thing.
What is interesting to me is that the ef
Mnyb wrote:
>
> It's ironic that we today use better tech to make it sound worse and
> sell it as 24bit 10 would probably suffice for some music out there :P
Sooo right! Finally many people in the music industry are finally
standing up to this! I have some old CD's from the 80-ies and their
Audiotic wrote:
> Maybe. But upsampled isn't doing them justice in many cases. These
> really are remasteredfrom(very good) analog tapes. And boy that can
> clear the air. Certainly versus the often very bad digital masters made
> for the CD.
> In any case, I hear the difference between a well m
Maybe. But upsampled isn't doing them justice in many cases. These
really are remasteredfrom(very good) analog tapes. And boy that can
clear the air. Certainly versus the often very bad digital masters made
for the CD.
In any case, I hear the difference between a well mastered DsD and an
bad CD o
10 matches
Mail list logo
