How Science Got Sound Wrong


I don't believe I've posted this before or if it has been posted before but I found it quite interesting despite its technical aspect. I didn't post this for a digital vs analog discussion. We've beat that horse to death several times. I play 90% vinyl. But I still can enjoy my CD's.  

https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil...
128x128artemus_5

Showing 4 responses by erik_squires

Microtime, as the article envisions it, is not a thing.

Interferometry and head/ear related comb filtering (i.e. HRTF) is.

1/44,100 is the sampling rate, not the precision of CD playback. 
Neurons are not single gates. They integrate of multiple conditions over time. 
Again, you can like Vinyl, but the article quoted by the OP won't stand up to much scrutiny.
PS - If you like vinyl or R2R, that's' fine, I'm not arguing you should stop liking it. I just don't think this author is bringing anything to the table.
Hahahhahaha. 

What a macaroon this guy is.

He touches on a few random scientific and audio points, like yes, we do experience sound with the body, and then acts as if he's just suddenly discovered something no one has researched.

Anyone really interested in how we localize sound should please search for "Head Related Transfer Functions."


Honestly, this guy is one of many many "gurus" I have read who do the same thing. Put together a number of things readers may know about, and then come up with entirely new ideas, which aren't really knew, and aren't really true. It is so depressing.