• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Just saying it doesn’t decrease the power is a norm claim without providing anything technical to support it.

    I’ve read multiple articles and videos and yet this very crucial information is intentionally not included.

    The claims are false, you can’t suppress or mute something with a tradeoff, unless they have somehow magically figured out physics anomalies.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Are you saying novel mechanical engineering designs are impossible? That the mechanism of a leaf blower is so near perfection, that a well funded team of 4 mechanical engineering students could not, without VIOLATING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, have simply found a better mechanism?

      I agree with your “show me the numbers” critique, but I find your complete disregard of what may be a better answer without any data at all to be equally foolhardy.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        He has a point though… OVERALL noise was only suppressed 2db. It’s only 12db in a specific frequency. EVERY article has more or less ONLY stated the 12db value. It seems more and more these days that you just have to assume that the article headline is at best mostly false, or obscenely misleading.

        2db overall… is kind of fucking pointless. I mean… as someone afflicted with hearing problems I know that every db matters. But all this hubbub for something that should just be found, then implemented without all this fanfare… the general public will not care about this, yet I’ve seen 3 articles on it for some reason.

        And most normal people don’t understand the logarithmic nature of the db scale anyway. Every 3 db is technically a doubling in power. But it takes 10db for our perception to halve/double.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I am saying every single one of these claims have never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics. Yet people perpetuate the claims and defend them without the supporting data.

        So to not provide the data for one claim, while providing the data for another is only done to mislead from the truth.

        Sorry for not accepting what they say at face value since it goes against multiple things.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          never wound up being actually true since they go against the very nature of physics.

          This is an incredibly wild statement when you have no data on the device’s construction or operation.

          Youre complaining about a lack of data then making wild assumptions about it with no data.

          Not exactly a good scientific method here, mate.

        • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.