Now that sounds interesting, hopefully it wasn’t dangerous. Do you see similarities with the many conspiracy “theories” gaining credence through the echo chambers of social media?
I have one or two folks as aquaintences who are convinced the earth is flat, 5g is killing us all etc etc.
I find it somewhat disturbing, mainly the lack of critical thinking (and a reflection of education, or lack of). But then, what do I know, the older I get the less I know 
@dancingsea
In my field of molecular and cellular biology new connections are found on a weekly basis. The interconnected networks and dynamics evolve into a huge spider web no one in the 90s could have even imagined. In my field, we are constantly reminded of the folly of measurements. If we look at the DNA of you compared to a non-human primate, it is 99% identical… therefore you are a non-human primate. Now imagine I take a stand that I will refuse to accept you are anything but a non-human primate till you prove me otherwise… by the way the only test I want to hear about is DNA sequencing…
Switching gears, why do some view DACs in a Christ like view of perfection like a cult of believers? DACs clearly sound very different to all of us! We can see the world is round, we know we are not primates… But yet we can’t accept this? IMO we are missing the forrest for the trees here. DACs are still in their infancy and in 500 years will be completely different and we will uncovered a huge new world… that is unless the ASR’s of the world have anything to do about it. There is no reason to innovate… we have perfect sound forever… we have solved the puzzle.
Otherwise we should just stop and buy AQ Dragonflies and cheap bookshelf speakers since I’m not aware of any double blind studies proving me of any audible benefits. Heck how about a $50 sound bar? It measures flat… that’s all we need until I see a listening test I will refuse to trust any of my observations.
This isn’t how science or observations work. You don’t wait to make observations until you are proven correct…
Doesn’t this sound like the genome sequencing promises of the media in the 90’s. If you sequence one’s genome all the secrets of biology are revealed! All diseases were supposed to be cured in record time! Then we found out we were ignorant of far more than we actually knew.
@dancingsea to be clear not a commentary directly at your post but my own views against oppositions in innovation and science. Your post got my brain working
4 Likes
Brother (or Sister) that is life in a nutshell. Once more humans accept that fact we will all be better off. Bravo.
1 Like
But the human species is in the primate order…so we are indeed primates.
1 Like
Order yes, species no. Audio is the same way as biology… implementation is key
2 Likes
There is no species called “primate” though. So your example is a bit flawed. You should have used the chimpanzee instead…but we are not really 99% identical genetically. See here:
You should know this given your field.
1 Like
@speed-racer
You are correct if we want to be correct with naming I should have I used the term “non-human primate.” We are in fact 98.7% identical to Bonobos and Chimps. The 1.3% does not explain the differences. DNA does nothing on its own.
It is only a code. Proteins are the workhorses creating complex feedback systems whereby genes produce proteins
(Which is carried out by a protein complex itself). The proteins that regulate genes are regulated by other genes that are regulated by proteins, that are regulated genes, regulated by proteins. Then there is the fact that DNA is coated heavily in protein called chromatin that can be modified. Imagine this being a form of compression to allow a huge genome to fit inside the nucleus. Portions of the genome can be open/closed to the gene expression machinery in a dynamic manner. Proteins modify the protein coat and you guessed it, these are regulated by genes regulated by etc… Next we enter the cytoplasm and we have to consider additional regulatory steps which can effect the rate of protein created from the mRNA strands and mechanisms which actively target mRNA for degradation. Small RNAs complementary to messenger RNA are used to target for degradation but the regulation of these small RNAs is back in the nucleus where they are regulated by chromatin and proteins.
A tiny change in a small part of the genome can fundamentally create a butterfly effect.
I apologize my specialty is on the molecular side so I was unclear on taxonomy specifics. My mind pictured what I was referring to but I failed to translate properly.
3 Likes
Amazing what a couple of billion years of random with selective pressure can end up as
3 Likes
Your video is quite good. It is easy to digest and mechanistically accurate at the same time.
I see many similarities to audio whereby the context of differences is several magnitudes more important than the simple calculations of similarity.
It appears the audio world is split in fragments. Those that make a simplistic measurement and call it a day, and those who look deeper for the context and want to understand implications within complex systems.
We didn’t even cover cellular signaling which has a hand in all of it. Or developmental biology which factors time into the equation. You have a distinct embryonic program that progressively shifts in time as you develop. Both cellular signaling, gene expression, epigenetics… change over time. Did your mind blow up yet?
1 Like
No but only because I spent many years with New Scientist on weekly order - I make no claim to understand the details, but a high level overview always makes me smile at the interconnected complexity of it all - analogue electronics design I did study for a while back then, but it ain’t got nothin’ on cellular biology - reading John Gribben’s “Schrodinger’s Cat” and “Double Helix” books started me in that direction. I say again I make no claim to understand any details or mechanisms, but it is something to marvel at
2 Likes
Most of us in it can’t understand it all. We all have to have a high level picture… each rabbit hole goes down insanely far. Molecular and cellular biology is fun… it constantly teaches its scientists that their assumptions were wrong every year.
1 Like
I nearly went to university to study biochemistry, it was a toss-up with that or electronics.
In the end I decided hitch hiking around the UK and meeting interesting folks around camp fires was more enlightening 
My fo!is were not impressed…
1 Like
@speed-racer
How do we calculate a % when dealing with duplications, inversions, and rearrangements? Honest question… but it’s a good example of how not to stop at a simplistic metric and how it can get us in to trouble.
You know when they found out that only a tiny portion of the genome encoded genes they termed the rest of the genome “junk DNA.” Then they found out that it was responsible for the regulatory part and that it was equally important.
Shouldn’t we weigh the similarity towards the actual function of the DNA? There are silent mutations all over the place that don’t alter the amino acids in proteins and have no effect and then there are single nucleotide changes which are embryonic lethal. We’re talking supercomputer level AI intelligence in order to understand everything (If we knew everything; probably 0.1% there).
I wasn’t aware we were 50% banana… haha.
1 Like
Hmm, I didn’t ever consider that I was joining a cult by trying the Matrix. Yes, I heard others speaking well about it, but that’s about all.
I bought a Matrix. I hooked it up. I turned it on. It sounded better than without.
To be sure, I unhooked the Matrix. It sounded not as good, by a long shot. So I hooked it back up and am happy. No measurements needed, no checking around with others to validate my opinion.
I operate pretty much in a vacuum when it comes to stereo, not having anyone local to compare things with.
How does that make me a member of a cult, if I have no other inputs?
I think you do people like me a disservice when you compare our experiences to that of cult members, especially when people like me are not part of a group-think, have no exalted leader, haven’t signed away our life fortunes, etc.
“Cult” can be a very charged and perjorative word, and since you were on the inside of two cults, I’m surprised that you don’t seem to realize that.
I don’t have an answer because I don’t do that kind of mathematics (statistical or comparative). It’s is misleading because all life is made of the same building blocks (carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and, proteins). All genotypes are controlled by DNA which is made up of just 4 different nucleotides. Based on that, I would be surprised if there wasn’t a lot of similarity in our DNA. Even if some parts of the sequence are the same, it doesn’t mean what those sections of sequence describe ARE similar.
In other words, those similarities in sequence mean nothing if they are in different places in the overall sequence. I would argue we are only 99% similar if you could take the chimpanzee genome, put it on top of the human genome, and find there is only 1% difference. Otherwise, it is just a manipulation of statistical data.
1 Like
Triple everything you said, in regard to speakers.
No, I think genetics is a little more complicated that speakers…or amps.
Yes maybe… don’t forget about thermodynamics, quantum, and statistical mechanics.
Do these matter for audibility? I dunno but that doesn’t mean there aren’t layers.
This is what they want you to think.