How Science Got Sound Wrong

What are you, The Two Stooges? Why, I oughta clunk your heads together! 🤪 😜

Malman, do I look like I care what you think? 🙄 Your post is not only a drive-by shooting but it’s a hijacking. You can’t even stay on topic. And stop stalking me.

Yes, beveling the outer edge of the CD to make the disc perfectly round is a good idea since it reduces the CD flutter and vibration. The disc still needs to be stiffened, I have a solution but it’s secret, it’s the Mystery Tweak.

blueranger
So are we hearing distortions in the electronics? Digital filters not removing all distortions and disrupting electronics downstream. There is something going on that people hear.

>>>>What you’re hearing is jitter caused by scattered laser light and by vibration from various sources. It’s a failure of the Reed Solomon Error Detection/Correction Codes as well as the CD laser servo feedback mechanism to keep up with external vibration, vibration induced by the transport and/or transformer and fluttering and vibration of the CD itself. The CD flutters because it’s out of round and/or because the disc is frequently not absolutely level whilst spinning 

I’ll take some of this action. The problem is not on the CD. The standard CD contains data with extremely high sound quality. You just can’t HEAR the sound quality, that’s all. The problem is the playback machine. There are a number of inherent problems with CD playback. Three problems that spring immediately to mind are (1) scattered background laser light, (2) seismic vibration and other mechanical vibration including the CD transport noise and acoustic vibration, and the vibration and flutter of the CD itself while spinning. The same high technology that created the Compact Disc also created the problems - nanotechnology and quantum mechanics.

Yes, I realize atdavid is going to try to tell me streaming solves all the problems with CDs. Sadly, streaming sucks. But it IS convenient, I’ll grant you that.

“You can be a knower or a blover.” - audiophile axiom

- your friend and audio insider,

geoff kait
machina dynamica
advanced audio conceits

The laws of statistics and probability dictate that even a monkey sitting down at a typewriter, assuming you could make them sit for that period of time, will eventually type something that’s true. But what, dear readers, does it really mean to make a true statement? People on both sides of any issue, especially digital vs analog, are quite capable of making true statements and often do. The issue is not (rpt not) black and white. 🦓

Note: even an expert in a specialized area cannot claim victory in an argument automatically simply by referencing his credentials. That is a, you know, Appeal to Authority.

I am sensing a Strawman argument there. I can assert that there's a humongous black hole in the center of our galaxy without having credentials in that area. you do NOT have to have credentials in some specific field to assert claims, or claims that are true. That would be silly since experts in a specialized field don't agree with each anyway.

You cannot say Neil Young doesn’t have a way with words.

“When you hear real music, you get lost in it, he added, “because it sounds like God. Spotify doesn’t sound like God. No one thinks that. It sounds like a rotating electric fan that someone bought at a hardware store.””

”Low-quality streaming is hurting our songs and our brains.”

“I’m only one person standing there going, ‘Hey, this is [expletive] up.”

“The compressed, hollow sound of free streaming music was a big step down from the CD. “Huge step down from vinyl,””

Is there a mechanism that thwarts to some degree obvious inflammatory troll posts?

It appears a certain somebody has taken a new tack. When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance snow them with verbosity. Ya know, that might actually work! Good job! But I’m betting there are more than a few Strawmen hiding in there.

glubsong
Is there a thread about audiophile hairstyles?

>>>It’s my understanding audiophiles don’t have hair. They did have hair. Just not any more.

As I said before the whole Peter Belt phenomenon is more relevant, more interesting and more important that what is contained in the article. In other words, the “standard model“ of how humans hear, how the neurons carry the signal from the ears to the brain that is the complete explanation of how we hear is utter BS.

Isn't it a little early for you to be sitting on your face, glubsong?

Exhibit A - Aerospace Engineering, Wikipedia page excerpt

Some of the elements of aerospace engineering are:[16][17]

Abbreviated list for uh, brevity

• Radar cross-section – the study of vehicle signature apparent to remote sensing by radar.
• Fluid mechanics – the study of fluid flow around objects. Specifically aerodynamics concerning the flow of air over bodies such as wings or through objects such as wind tunnels(see also lift and aeronautics).
• Astrodynamics – the study of orbital mechanics including prediction of orbital elements when given a select few variables. While few schools in the United States teach this at the undergraduate level, several have graduate programs covering this topic (usually in conjunction with the Physics department of said college or university).
• Statics and Dynamics (engineering mechanics) – the study of movement, forces, moments in mechanical systems.
• Mathematics – in particular, calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra.
• Electrotechnology – the study of electronics within engineering.
• Propulsion – the energy to move a vehicle through the air (or in outer space) is provided by internal combustion engines, jet engines and turbomachinery, or rockets (see also propeller and spacecraft propulsion).

🔜The basis of most of these elements lies in theoretical physics, such as fluid dynamics for aerodynamics or the equations of motion for flight dynamics. 🔙 There is also a large empirical component. Historically, this empirical component was derived from testing of scale models and prototypes, either in wind tunnels or in the free atmosphere. More recently, advances in computing have enabled the use of computational fluid dynamics to simulate the behavior of the fluid, reducing time and expense spent on wind-tunnel testing. Those studying hydrodynamics or hydroacoustics often obtain degrees in aerospace engineering.

It just sounds right.

Sensory Metrics of Neuromechanical Trust
William Softky
wsoftky@stanford.edu
Bioengineering Deptartment, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA 94025, U.S.A.
Criscillia Benford
criscillia.benford.gmail.com
Continuing Studies, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA 94025, U.S.A.
Today digital sources supply a historically unprecedented component of human sensorimotor data, the consumption of which is correlated with poorly understood maladies such as Internet addiction disorder and In- ternet gaming disorder. Because both natural and digital sensorimotor data share common mathematical descriptions, one can quantify our in- formational sensorimotor needs using the signal processing metrics of entropy, noise, dimensionality, continuity, latency, and bandwidth. Such metrics describe in neutral terms the informational diet human brains re- quire to self-calibrate, allowing individuals to maintain trusting relation- ships. With these metrics, we define the trust humans experience using the mathematical language of computational models, that is, as a prim- itive statistical algorithm processing finely grained sensorimotor data from neuromechanical interaction. This definition of neuromechanical trust implies that artificial sensorimotor inputs and interactions that at- tract low-level attention through frequent discontinuities and enhanced coherence will decalibrate a brain’s representation of its world over the long term by violating the implicit statistical contract for which self- calibration evolved. Our hypersimplified mathematical understanding of human sensorimotor processing as multiscale, continuous-time vibratory interaction allows equally broad-brush descriptions of failure modes and solutions. For example, we model addiction in general as the result of homeostatic regulation gone awry in novel environments (sign reversal) and digital dependency as a sub-case in which the decalibration caused by digital sensorimotor data spurs yet more consumption of them.

Frankly I think the author might be onto something and I’m only judging by what he wrote in some other articles I located somewhere in cyberspace, including this excerpt from one of them. It just sounds right. 

“I’m fascinated by sound baths not just for the quiet, subtle thrills that pure tones give to any breathing human. As a neuroscientist and biophysicist, I spent my career understanding the mathematical theory of how fluid brains interact with vibrating bodies, with the most relevant discoveries published in three research papers (see here, here and here). It turns out that coherent sound patterns can help nervous systems “tune” themselves, in the same general way tuning-forks help experts tune pianos or harps.”

I didn’t even have squeeze your head that time, glubby. Good show!

A gathering of goofballs. 😳 😳

Aerospace Engineering curriculum IS theoretical physics, Mr. Bluster. Remember? Theoretical propulsion, theoretical fluid dynamics, statistical thermodynamics, things of that nature. I can see stream coming out of your nose again, Mr. Bloviator in Chief. 😤 

Wrong again, Mr. Bluster! I never said I had a degree in Theoretical Physics. And I never said I had a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, either. I bet you’re really confused now, Mr. Bluster. 😡 Am I seeing steam coming out of your nose? 😤

Allow your friend and humble narrator to summarize: atdavid is never wrong and it’s everybody else who doesn’t understand. 🤗

Huh? Is there an echo in here?

atdavid
The problem is GK, is that he is Not a world expert, not even remotely on the underlying topic of this whole article. He is an expert on physics and and neurobiology. He is absolutely not an expert on digitization, digital signal processing and reconstruction. Everything he says about human hearing and perception we can assume is 100% right and it makes no difference as the whole premise of his article is underlying flaws in timing in a multi channel audio system that frankly are not there. No expert in signal processing would have ever made the fundamental flaw(s) he did.

I find it disappointing that once again you have made posts that carry absolutely no relevance or information and add nothing to the discussion but appear to be only attempts to hear yourself talk. Feel free to use your obviously extensive free time to find a scientifically relevant paper ( i.e. something published and reviewed) that shows what I said to be false. If you can’t do that, then please go troll elsewhere. There are people here that actually want to learn.

>>>>Uh, I already posted something relevant. Hel-loo! You either didn’t read it or you are one of the people who aren’t here to learn. Take your pick, Mr. Know-it-all. You even claimed to know how the brain functions. Give us break! You’re here to bully, not learn. As Noah Cross tells James Gittes in Chinatown, you may think you know what’s going on but you don’t. You have a very limited scope of what affects the sound. I’m just going by what you say. Your/his argument is a typical pseudo skeptical Appeal to Authority. Better luck next time. As expert is defined as someone with a brief case 50 miles from home.

Is there an echo in here? 😳

I did my best. I gave it the smell test. But I don’t think I can use it. Now, the ice crystal thing I can use! Information fields I get and I can use them. But best wishes for you and your pets.

I guess people believe what they want to believe. I don’t know that much about memory of water but it seems a little far-fetched to me. And I am the Grand Wazoo of far-fetched. Be that as it may if people wish to believe in the memory of water I hold no ill will. I might consider looking more closely at memory of water if it could somehow be used to improve the sound. What is it good for? I certainly don’t know. Even Nobelists can have their own little pet theories. It kind of comes with the territory. 

Uh, memory of water idea has not been proven but it’s pretty to think so. I.e., it’s purported to be true. Wink wink 😉 

Speaking of memory of water... are you sitting down? Ice crystals form in different ways depending on the message written on a piece of paper.

https://youtu.be/tAvzsjcBtx8

It should sound familiar. He’s talking about you, Ethan. I know what you’re thinking: “Why is he saying those things about me. I am a real scientist!”

atdavid,
And yes it is a red herring that keeps being raised by people who don’t understand how how digitization and analog reconstruction works and the math behind it.

>>>>>>Well, no wonder nobody understands. 🤗 That’s GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!

That article was very entertaining, especially this little nugget. That’s gold, jerry, gold!!

“Put another way, if a sensitive, world-acclaimed innovator denounces his industry and its technology for undermining human dignity and brain function, something big is up. Who could be more qualified than a world expert — with loads of experience and no incentive to fib — to call the alarm about widespread technological damage.”

I’m afraid that article is the same old song and dance. What is much more interesting are the ideas of Peter Belt and his whole free wheeling approach to sound and how the local environment affects our perception of sound. These ideas help explain why cell phones 📱  in the room degrade the sound, why books in the room degrade the sound, why unused cables and electronics in the room degrade the sound. Even why our hearing is degraded by having clocks  ⏰ or watches in the room. Things of that nature. Mind-Matter Interaction. Mind over matter. Much of the standard bologna of the theory of perception of sound has become trite.