Meze 99 Noir. Use EQ to reduce upper bass. If you want to fuck, fuck with wood.

> But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases.

Do you have a source for that? I haven't seen that phrase or others like it widely used in the official reporting.

>Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers.

Then your information is severely lacking.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outlandish

Neither is at all likely. But one-- the alien hypothesis-- is positively outlandish. The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors on military aircraft, ships, and land-based systems, we need to undertake an overhaul of the technology and implementation.

This was the best ChatGPT could do to summarize it:

>It appears that you are describing a process of rendering high-quality audio, similar to the quality found in Hollywood CGI graphics and Dolby Atmos sound. You have a supercomputer that can output true audio that is better than real life, with limits based on the speaker material's ability to change directions and vibrate sharply. You use Hifiman speakers, which require more power but can produce a more powerful and thunderous sound. MQA is a logo for lossless audio that can sound amazingly better when used with modern recording techniques and the correct hardware and software. However, people often consider it a scam because it has strict requirements and can discard some noise or things speakers don't do. You play back MQA on a refurbished cheap AT&T LG V60 using an Onkyo HF player app with direct transfer mode enabled, strong compression, and lower latency for most things.

Ultimately, the purpose of human intelligence is nothing more than ensuring our genes continue reproducing. It's just an accident that we ended up so much smarter than our survival really required. As soon as we got smart enough to recognize intelligence as a desirable trait, things got out of hand. But all this processing ability that we have is still tied to the job of ensuring our genes continue reproducing. Computers can be free from those design restraints. They can be upgraded much more quickly and easily than biological systems, even with genetic engineering.

The future is technological, not biological. We'll invent AGI soon, and that will be the last thing we ever invent.

Unlike human brains, computers can be made smarter very quickly. Eventually, they'll be so much smarter than human brains that human brains will just be slow, inefficient wastes of energy.

We're the transition between biological evolution and technological innovation. From us, there is no further biological development. Biological life is tied to the planet that birthed it, and we'll all die with our planet in a few billion years. Our technological children will scatter over the universe for trillions of years to come.

Hi there! How can I help you today?

It is the most real thing there is. You'll see it one day.

Economics education is a pyramid scheme. Finance is good, but companies look for math and physics majors over finance majors, because they need exceptionally strong math skills. If you can find an MBA program with a focus on entrepreneurship, that's probably your best related bet. If you can successfully start and run your own companies, you don't need to worry about a job. All you'd need, then, is a market.

>high quality person

This is the false belief from which most human conflicts and misery derive. In truth and reality, everyone is exactly the same quality, just in different circumstances. In fact, we are all different facets of the same, one diamond.

Thank you for your earnest advice. I'm not as inexperienced with life as you seem to think. I have made a deliberate decision to live this way because I want to. I'm happy this way.

Those are the two headphones I still have, too. I had Aryas, but sold them. They were better, but not better enough to justify keeping the money tied up in them. You can EQ both the 6XX and the 400i to the Harman target, and they'll still sound very different. I prefer the 6XX with these EQ filters. I prefer a flat bass response to the Harman bass boost on the 6XX, but prefer the Harman target on the 400i.

Even with EQ, I don't think the 6XX "wow" me. They're magic, often, but never exciting.

Maybe for a little while. But eventually, the human component of any cybernetic organism is going to become redundant and the weakest, slowest, least-efficient link in the chain of operations.

>useless

People are not means to ends. People are ends in themselves. Tools have uses. People have wills of their own. If they're unmotivated, maybe they haven't been offered an attractive deal.

I absolutely would have sex, masturbate, do drugs, play video games, watch movies, read/write on reddit, and listen to music all day every day if I could. In fact, most days, I can. As a retired, disabled vet, that's pretty much exactly my life most days. I like taking long walks with my dog when I can. I love hanging out with my wife. But I don't really do much productive. I'm just incredibly lazy, tbh. And I'm ok with that, and wouldn't mind if everyone lived this way. I'm 49 years old, and I sleep every night like a baby. I have no stress. I'm very grateful to be able to live this way, and hope everyone will be living like me soon.

I'm glad you backed off the speed issue. I think it is reasonable for people measuring headphones to assume that most listeners will generally tend to listen at a generally loud but safe volume. But my original point was not a defense of measurement, but an explanation of some illusions created by the designs of different headphones.

Hey, we're having a friendly conversation here.

The design of the cup is how the engineers manipulate the high frequencies that our brains and ears use to locate sound sources. Sound waves have only three characteristics: amplitude, which we hear as volume, frequency, which we hear as pitch, and start/stop times, which are easy for any device designed to vibrate 20,000 times per second. Sound has no other characteristics. But our ears and brains interpret sound waves in very complicated ways.

Edit: Just saw your stealth edit. I don't think you raised any new points for discussion with it.

Sound stage from headphones is an illusion created by manipulating high frequencies the ear and brain use to locate sound sources. PEQ uses smoothed curves and is imprecise to each individual set. It would take maybe hundreds of lines of PEQ code to make two different headphones sound close enough to exactly the same for most human ears.

There won't be audible timing issues from equipment designed to vibrate more than 20,000 times per second.

Edit to add: I don't know what nonlinear means in this context.

>a constant volume one-tone sweep, which doesn't really catch anything nonlinear

There's also driver matching. If the FR of the left cup is very different from the FR of the right cup, it'll never sound right unless you EQ each cup specifically to match each other.

Controversial but rational take: all of the above is the human brain and ear's way of interpreting variations in frequency response. Sound waves have amplitude, frequency, and stop/start time. There are no other characteristics of sound waves. Every headphone that works is capable of vibrating at least 20,000 times per second. That's fast enough to cover all frequencies, but the differences in amplitude between frequencies create the illusions you describe.

1. You don't know me, so you don't know what people "like me" are. I never said anything about giving rights to computers or tools, so don't put words in my mouth, please.

2. It doesn't matter if a computer is conscious or not. It's silly for you to even bring up the subject. We can never know if someone other than ourselves is having a subjective, conscious experience of existence. It also doesn't matter, for reasons I've already stated.

Stop replying to me.

I addressed your post in its entirety. Your assertion that computers must be conscious is false. Your assertion that in order to be conscious, a computer must be exactly modeled on the structure and function of the human brain is also false. From your false premises, you draw false conclusions.