How Science Got Sound Wrong

My proofing the digital vs analog thing, was to put the imaginary speakers 8 feet apart...

and put the listener 8 feet back, at the tip of an equilateral triangle, kinda thing.

then fire a signal off both speakers at the same time, a sharp tick or ping sound.

then vary the timing of the signal released off one speaker, vs the other.

Humans can generally hear a ’one inch’ shift of the position of the phantom between the speakers ’ping’ sound.

This equates to a perfected zero jitter timing change of 1/100,000th of a second. Which in Nyquist terms, means a clock and signal rate of at least 225khz, with zero jitter.

for a single ping.

never mind the complexities of an orchestra, and all the instruments.

a prior calculation of what is on a record, under the best conditions....is that it comes in at a equivalent sample rate of zero jitter, at around 7 million samples per second. That is how good it’s inter channel transient timing agreeance is.

With some wobble on it, but overall, yes, at the 7 million samples a second rate. We can hear through the wobble, our ear-brain is designed for it. (cancels out heart beats and blood rushing, etc)

I talked about this as the correct counter digital argument (the 16/44 ’perfect’ argument), back in the early 90’s on the original rec.highend binaries groups that were around back then.

I’d get shouted down and called names, even though the self testable logic was right there - out in the open.

The calculation was that the timing, shaping, etc...in a 16/44 recording or playback, was only good up to about 1.05khz, and after that ----it would get progressively worse. (wave form length in time vs clocking and rate- as related to human hearing fundamental design and sensitivities)

As for expertise, you’ll have to provide your own proof of that, with a name and a background on yourself.
 
We can and do have similar discussion over at DIYAudio, and the participants hang their shingle right on the posts they commit to. Scott Wurcer, Demian Martin, Nelson Pass, John Curl, and many more. No one there snipes from a hidden position.

Timing resolution of digitized bandwidth limited signals.

Of course, timing resolution and bandwidth limiting not being the same thing at all, except in some given limited mathematical applications.

a premise 100% false within the confines of a bandwidth limited system and no one has ever shown that our ears/auditory system is anything but a bandwidth limited system, and this article did absolutely nothing to disprove that it is not bandwidth limited.

Say what?

Your reading comprehension is way way off....which indicates a multitude of other ......

careful with those double standards... and your penchant for putting words in others mouths that they have not said.... and then using those false premise to attack their view or position.

that clearly show that a digitized system can carry within it relative timing information that is well beyond the sample rate. The whole premise of the article is that the timing is limited to the sample rate. That is false. That makes the whole premise of the article also false.

not so fast.
the limit, mathematically... is ..fairly high

The real world of jitter, quantization noise, dither, etc, decreases that quite drastically. The idea of micro temporal differentiation across channels hits the intrinsic limits of the real world 16/44 rather quickly.

As one tries to ’draw’ or ’write’ that micro differential that is above 1/ 22,000 of a second..., it’s capacity to express itself brickwalls on the capacity of the system to micro-resolve signal.

One might say that the noise floor and distortion limits of not just one but both channels together (in excess of 2x distortion, ie, two channels in action, together) begin to be expressed as inter channel timing limits...

So it is nowhere close to being as the mathematics make it out to be.

We also know that noise floor... it wanders all over the place, is signal dependent, and each channel is different. So yeah, well over 2x distortion in the inter channel temporal domain. And a few other problems, not really all that well addressed in the real world.

We hear it in the given dac as indistinct and hazy imaging spread/smear. Especially under complex loading. Not so much a problem with simpler signals. When the song gets busy the worst of the given dacs --get hazy, bright, congested, etc..

The math says nice things. The real world says it is dog poo.

the article tells you why this is all so important. Eg, the MSB range of fine limits means the micro expression amplitude perfection which the ear is built on and out of...is not possible in a peak situation of micro timing differential in an actual 16/44 dac.

Yet, it is by the peaks that we recognize these differences and this is the part where the dac falls down. So, not just the noise floor limits for the body of the signal (complex mid to high level harmonics) but the inability of the MSB area of dac signal expression to subdivide fine enough.

One might even say that delta-sigma was an attempt to fix this problem but was executed so poorly that it sounded worse than R2R.

Well, any finishing/programming issues would obviously show up in the metal more than the wood and I don’t really see any, so it appears to be a nice combination of quality hardware and well reasoned programming. To my relatively untrained eye, that is. (you edited to offer the buffing comment)

I mean, that Haas hardware... is enough to get an enthusiast all wiggly inside like a happy puppy.

Enough of the side discussion, I guess.... and back to whacking each together with nail riddled 2x4's of poorly thought out hack attacks.

You aren’t the only one selling things. I machine tweeter lenses called MAHL tweeter lenses as replacements for two of Klipsch’s tweeters. I just never pushed them here because this is not a very big Klipsch site.Look up MAHL on ebay to see.

Looked it up, pretty neat stuff. Trying to get a better impedance match on the air vs the throat and dome?

machining the throat/horn is a bit of a bear, I’ll wager. that’s some painful bit of CNC work, probably with some notable finishing work. (I bought a 5 axis CNC set up a while back)

I’m the most successful one selling things on this site.

Is Teleportation Tweak considered a "thing" or it is some other state of non-being?

The problem for the naysayers is that the science and the physics has always supported what he is doing and what he is saying. It has no method of disproving him -- rather the opposite, in fact.

Such things tend to make ’the monkey in man’ quite uncomfortable, so they use the fact argument of prior thinking projected into everything.

For if Geoff is correct, then a lot of what the linear and ego mind operates on and works hard to exist comfortably within (safe in the tree with a banana) will disappear ....and one is left.... more than a little bit groundless.

The problem for the naysayers is that the science and the physics has always supported what he is doing and what he is saying. It has no method of disproving him -- rather the opposite, in fact.

Such things tend to make ’the monkey in man’ quite uncomfortable, so they use the fact argument of prior thinking projected into everything.

For if Geoff is correct, then a lot of what the linear and ego mind operates on and works hard to exist comfortably within (safe in the tree with a banana) will disappear ....and one is left.... more than a little bit groundless.

No matter what the texts say and what the leading edge of the science and physics says (as some think they’ve got it figured out), it is still turtles all the way down.

In essence, we all live in a forest, in a box..and if the forest is full enough, complex enough, etc (for the given individual)...then we can’t see the walls of the box and then we don’t understand that there is even a box.

The vast majority of humans live like this, this thing where their consciousness is like a s**tstain running down the side of an animal. It is unavoidable unless one isolates themselves from it (the world and interactions of any kind), like a buhddist or zen monk, and spends the decades it takes to clear ones self up..

The linear mind as attached to someone trained out of textbooks (rote dogmatic impression and regurgitation) and told to use that text as a dogmatic bible and thrust it at all out there they see and encounter..as a filter and hammer...this person might not be (and probably isn’t) wired to understand that their forest IS actually in a box.

As.. it is in a box.

A box on the back of a turtle, and well, we can’t see through the mist (turtle) to see if it ends or of there is another turtle below that, or a million more turtles - or what.

Go to any university and ask any professor of physics if they think what I say is true or not. They may take exception with how I’m presenting it or wording it, but..conceptually, re the idea of reality itself...they will agree.

This basic point in human psychological positioning and understanding is the very raison d’être of engineering vs physics/science, as wholly separate vocations and mindset ---from one another. Eg, Queens university here in Kingston, categorically refuses to conflate engineering with physics, for that very core and important reason. It’s embedded in the names of the courses, the naming of the fields of endeavor, the buildings, the paper work, in everything. It is subtle, but 100% there. Just like it is in all other facilities dedicated to higher education.

You exist as a self created and self maintained load line of data points, hanging in a unfathomable mist, connected to nothing discernible.

That’s all we’ve got.

Engineering is when we utilize the data points on that misty ended loadline...among themselves as a representation and fabrication of a forest and forest products -- within the box. And that job, or endeavor as a fundamental, has pointedly.. no use for theory and is centered around facts, as the load line is one of facts.

But the full nature of the loadine as seen by science, is one of all theory, as.... with no anchor point, it can’t be anything else. The science and physics....recognizes and attempts to deal with the box and the turtle, or tries to deal with the misty obscured ends of the loadline.

You can look at one of a thousand different expressions of it and find exactly the same.

Few look, though. as the nature of it is to become ungrounded and then ostracized at a minimum, so the animal carrier of the self...shies from it.

I’m not sure that I moved the discussion forward or not.

I made some over the top statements to try and drive some of it home, for some of the readers.

Taras called me on it. Not quite his words, but something along the line of calling it ’word salad’ was said, as a more polite euphemism.

So, sure, I made the point of stating the divide between physics/science and engineering...as being more concrete and extreme than it actually is.

As rational comments can get buried and missed, with the rational being tossed aside by all. Reading by the punches, one might say. In rational thinking people there is no issue, they understand the differences. Some don’t... hence the overstatement.

Magnetic tape has issues with noise, wow/flutter, induced signal issues from non linear movement over the heads, etc. To vinyl add more noise, poor channel to channel isolation, and inaccuracies with RIAA equalization / de-equalization and even less "information" in or close to the audio band

the human hearing system was designed, from the ground up, over millennia, in the realm of natural selection, to hear through and past noise and wow & flutter. We filter out of our hearing....the rushing of our blood and heartbeat - in every second of being alive. And much much more.

It was designed to do these complex things via it’s temporally sensitive and aligned comb filter ’multi thousand point’ amplitude triggered system. All tied to the most complex and potent bit of computing power known to exist ---the human mind.

Where those powers of cognition vary between individuals, to the tune of 300,000:1 in cognition speed, when we go from 100 to 200 IQ. Where.. what it takes a person with 100IQ a year to cognate, a person with 200 IQ can cognate in 3 minutes. This is a theoretical calculation put forth from a member of the Prometheus society, which requires an IQ of 169 at a minimum, to become a member. There is much to show that this is hewing close to the reality, otherwise the member would not have put forth the musing.

According to the calculation itself, others may take quite some time to catch up to the obviousness of the proposal of this thread... being tied up in, well, emotional reflection of internal issues when presented with the proffered data point.

Intellect is an afterthought and the brain is designed to be transient with respect to intelligence and musing..or.. mostly an ego loop and unconscious. This is by design and by reality.(proven in modern sciences on subjects of intellectual/brain function) (don’t demand the articles, please go look for them, ie not my job to bring detractors up to date)

Hence my nicely rude line about how people wear their consciousness. (where I do not exempt myself, and.. as this post comes into focus for the reader...it is seen as frighteningly close to the truth)

Intelligence was designed from the ground up to rise, use bodily energies, find the first answer.... and then fade until the next time it is called to the forefront. The moment to moment thing you like to think of as your conscious bubble is mostly an ’emotions first as permanent filter’ - ego loop on standby. The brain at full pop requires too much of the body's energies, and like a muscle, was designed to only be in transient operation and use. Elastic. Flexible.. but mostly at rest. (this Machiavellian world seems to take great advantage of these aspects, does it not?)(how does a parasite work, again? Oh yes, by staying out of conscious awareness)

Next comes the idea of hearing, and rumination via hearing.

the idea that It follows the same path in individuals as does basic intelligence. That the variations in hearing capacities (as a complex system) may also follow this range of at least 300,000:1 in fine resolution of brainpower tied to sensitivities.

After all, half the population is at and below the 100IQ median line used in the calculation and that half remains untouched in the numbers used. So the truth is that it is ..likely worse than the ruminations and theory - as realities go.

A good set of hearing/ear qualities may be tied to a very fine mind or some average hearing may be tied to a very fine mind...

...or.. a set of poor ears might be tied to a middling level mind.

Where that middling level mind may insist that it knows everything about digital audio and human hearing... and that others who hear and think differently are wrong.

The question is if the middling mind can hear, can it ruminate, and can it even reach the answer in a reasonable enough level of time to be effective in the conversation, at all.

digital audio has the whole answer and problem set put on --completely backward, or in a way that has nothing to do with how the ear works. Or, in total contrary aspect to how the ear works.

Digital audio makes terrific engineering and mathematical sense, but very poor sense, with regard to how the ear works. This has been covered multiple times in this thread.


Something about time, and cognition, If I recall correctly....

If we want to talk about reality, all of reality is subjective and can be no other way. Objectivity is an agreed upon subset of a purely subjective reality. Objectivity is a thought device. A fiction.

We are figments of our non existent imaginations, is what the quantum sciences say. And everything is quantum, when we get down to it.

Reality is a hallucination

Visual neurons don't work the way scientists thought, study finds

I know, lets find some flatearthers who think that mathematical analogies mistaken as facts.... somehow represent how people hear.

As they read something about human hearing and decided to force factualize that into the math they learned in some engineering application.

As god knows, since science says there are no facts and all is theory, as thing change constantly..well..

it then makes perfect sense to create a whole wall of facts around the engineering math of sound reproduction and somehow conflate this into some dogma about how humans hear....and all must be that reality....and the rest is just human fallacy, right?

As we know all the math and we know everything about human hearing, right?

Just like we knew everything about human eyesight just yesterday, right?