You’re joking, how ridiculous. I did not ask you to break down the concept of SPL, I just asked what 120dB below 90dBSPL was. And you present all those calculations and give me an answer in the wrong unit, the question was in dBSPL, not micro-pascals. And after all that, your answer is effectively WRONG, given the context:
So, your answer is 0.632455532 μPa which in dB SPL is -30dBSPL. All that break down of concept and calculation and you would have got the same answer by doing the obvious, simply 90 - 120. How absolutely typical, not only have you taken the most convoluted path possible but you’ve actually ended up with the wrong answer!! Given the obvious conditions, listening to a recording in typical breathable air, then no sound at all is roughly -23dBSPL. IE. Inside a hypothetically perfect anechoic chamber that allows absolutely no sound to enter and in which there is absolutely no sound being reproduced, the SPL would measure approximately -23dBSPL simply due to the sound created by the air molecules in the room colliding with each other (Brownian motion). If no sound being reproduced whatsoever is -23dBSPL then obviously -30dBSPL cannot exist, you cannot reproduce less sound than no sound.
Again, you’ve got that completely backwards, no real scientist would make a claim without knowing or at least finding out the conditions, only an ignorant person, an idiot or a“pseudo scientist” would! Using μPa, no reproduced sound at all (in air) would be roughly 1.4 μPa. So yes, absolutely 0.632455532 μPa = 0 μPa and indeed anything below roughly 1.4 μPa is “exactly the same” because lower than that does not exist!! This is only hypothetical though, in practice the quietest room ever built has a noise floor of -19.5dBSPL (roughly 2.1 μPa).
In terms of sound reproduction then yes of course they’re exactly the same, because I’m not an “ignorant person, an idiot or a pseudo scientist”!
It is perfect.
Would people consider something that has imperfections which do not exist in the real world to be perfect? What about sane, rational, realistic people?
You are contradicting yourself! You stated “I am not an audio science expert” and now you’re saying “to my trained eyes”. As the topic you’re arguing about is audio/sound science and you admit (and have clearly demonstrated!) you do not have expertise, then you do not have “trained eyes”.
If you were “interested in critical thinking” then you would adhere to the definition of critical thinking that you YOURSELF posted, but you do not! So, the only question remaining is: Are you only lying to us or are you lying to yourself as well?
At last, two relevant questions! The answer to the first one is: Nonsense/BS/Pseudoscience. The answer to the second one appears to be: Oh dear god Yes! Although it seems more likely that you are not mentally blocked, you are just pretending to be, in order to troll and spread pseudoscience.
The point above your most relevant questions is interesting though. The first sentence is at least partially false because I don’t think anyone here believes “Hi-Res is useless”, only that it is useless as a consumer distribution format. However, those with some expertise in the subject can/do indeed have different definitions of perfect! In the real world, we are dealing with absolute minimum limits under given conditions, at and beyond which we can legitimately describe something as perfect. We have the limits of human hearing, we have the limits of sound itself (as discussed above), we have the limits of an analogue signal (defined at least by Thermal/Johnson Noise) and then we have the limits of digital audio, which is quite different because that is not the real world, it’s the conceptual world of numbers, hence why we need ADCs and DACs of course. Therefore, as each of these limits is different, the point at which “perfect” is reached is different (although obviously not to an “ignorant person, an idiot or a pseudo scientist”)!
Your apparent concept of “perfect” is utterly irrelevant nonsense! It can never exist in any of these audio/sound areas (and is therefore useless/meaningless), it would require an infinite sample rate and bit depth in the digital domain, breaking the laws of physics in both the analogue and acoustic sound domains and being some sort of extraterrestrial god (not subject to the laws of physics) as far as hearing is concerned!
Why do you keep discrediting your own arguments? You quoted “critical thinking” from Wikipedia and then did NOT comply with the quoted conditions to achieve it. Now you quote Wikipedia again: “Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.” - Which is exactly what you are doing, thereby discrediting your own arguments due to confirmation bias!
Yes, we already know you are demonstrating confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking, so why do you need to explain that to us explicitly with citations, why are you arguing on that basis in science discussion forums and what response do you expect if you just keep repeating arguments based on those fallacies (confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking)?
G
