How Science Got Sound Wrong

At the University of Toronto, many of the Engineering disciplines like Electrical and Computer, Biomedical, Aerospace, and Engineering Physics were split out from some of the more "traditional" engineering disciplines into a sub-Department called Engineering Science.


This is the background on Engineering Physics, which is specifically administered within the Department of Engineering Science, in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering.

"The Department of Physics at the University of Toronto, together with the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, created the Engineering Physics program in 1934 (called Engineering Science since 1965). The Physics Major continues to attract students with a keen aptitude for physics who see the creative potential for combining this with an engineering degree. Graduates appreciate the high degree of flexibility provided to them in terms of the design of their program across a wide spectrum of theoretical and experimental physics courses."

As far as I know they don’t teach this in Engineering school. “If you consider the short answer as a kind of joke the answer to what is relativity is that formerly it was believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe time and space would be all that was left. But according to relativity theory time and space would disappear along with the things.” A. Einstein

*blink*  I trust y'all had a pleasant Thanksgiving....since there isn't any posts 11/28...*gentle needling*

Space/time, relatively speaking, geo...now they're postulating a quantum universe, where nothing is as it seems, if I've managed to get a vague handle on it....;)

Figures....If nothing makes any sense, it all starts to make sense.

Now all I have to do is to take some semblance of comfort in that. *S*

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The basis of most of the elements of an Aerospace Engineering curriculum lies in 🔜theoretical physics 🔚 such as fluid dynamics for aerodynamics or the equations of motion for flight dynamics. There is also a strong element of empirical science as in wind tunnel testing and rocketry. 🚀

Let's see. What was the topic that we were to discuss?

There are several topics under discussion. One is why digital sounds so horrible. Especially why digital generally can’t match the tonality or dynamic range of vinyl. Also, why digital playback seems to be missing a considerable amount of information. Agree? Disagree? Talk amongst yourselves.

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.

Say I do have some questions on one of the topics brought up in this thread. RE the Teleportation Tweak. I figure since we have been promised some info on it I was wondering about a couple of things.

Will the Solar Minimum allow for better or lesser quality installs over time?
  Does the constant shifting of the true Magnetic North change the install of TT at all?
  I worry about ice buildup or shrinkage at the North and South Poles and Greenland and if current levels change and the Earths roundness is distorted from this will it effect the Van Allen Belts and how would this effect TT?

Without giving away any secrets I can tell you the following. 

1. There is no limit to the distance the TT will work. It would almost certainly work on Mars or the Moon is there were any audiophiles there.
2, Not only does the customer’s system not have to be ON at the time the TT is performed but the caller doesn’t have to be home. In fact, he can be calling from another city or country or from an aircraft.
3.The caller will find his reception has improved a couple of bars after the TT has been performed
4. If the customer’s system is ON and playing music at the time I do the TT I can instantly hear the improvement over the phone as I’m doing it.
5.The customer is free to listen to the TT or not. Some choose not to listen. 😬
6. The TT is permanent until the customer replaces the phone. In which case the TT must be done on the new phone.
7. For best results all phones in the house should get the TT.

There is not "evidence" that:

- Digital is "missing" information w.r.t. analog/vinyl at least information that can in any way be detected or influence our listening

- It is actually a very small group of people who claim "digital sounds horrible". Many musicians say that digital is truer to reality, whether you like it or not.

- Digital "tonality" is essentially perfect (unlike vinyl), and dynamic range of 24/96 is enormous compared to any analog format

- 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

None of which means we should prefer CD, we tend to like over saturated colors, many like too much bass, etc. Like and accurate are not the same thing.  Unsupportable conjectures do nothing to advanced discussions.

geoffkait18,646 posts12-01-2019 12:06pmThere are several topics under discussion. One is why digital sounds so horrible. Especially why digital generally can’t match the tonality or dynamic range of vinyl. Also, why digital playback seems to be missing a considerable amount of information. Agree? Disagree? Talk amongst yourselves.

Musicians. Now, there is a group of people who cannot hear! I’m not sure why but I’m guessing it’s because of being blasted by all those instruments 🎺 instruments 🎻 at close range, but who knows? One of the worst systems I even had the displeasure to hear belonged to the first oboist of the National Symphony. He had great equipment, too, all Cello electronics and monster 8’ Cello speakers. He was a Cello dealer. That Cello stuff ain’t cheap plus he has $10K worth of room treatment. He just couldn’t hear, that’s all. That’s evidence, baby! 🤗

Musicians. Now, there is a group of people who cannot hear!

said the guy who knows one.

Of the hundreds of musicians and engineers I worked with, I'd say most could hear better than your average NASA crank.

"3.The caller will find his reception has improved a couple of bars after the TT has been performed"

So, Teleportation Tweak means "being thrown out of a bar"?

After a couple of such Teleportations from bars, a subject starts behaving in a more acceptable manner, hence reception in subsequent bars improves?

Did I finally get to the bottom of this?

glubson
Did I finally get to the bottom of this?

>>>>You got to the bottom of your bottom.

>>>>You got to the bottom of your bottom.

That's deep. I'll have to get back to you with that one.

Don’t hurt yourself.

Hey GK, I only get like a half bar on my phone and what would the bar level be on average with the TT?
  Have you ever thought about adding solar flare protection to the tweak?

That will come out with next firmware.

ieales

Musicians. Now, there is a group of people who cannot hear!

said the guy who knows one.

Of the hundreds of musicians and engineers I worked with, I’d say most could hear better than your average NASA crank.

>>>>I assume you’re referring to construction work. 

mahlman
Hey GK, I only get like a half bar on my phone and what would the bar level be on average with the TT? Have you ever thought about adding solar flare protection to the tweak?

>>>>That was included in version 1.2.2. Free downloads to customers. Just point your phone at the sky for 5 minutes.

@teo_audio   Add to that the fact that we only have 4% of the universe from which to get answers and you have a real dilemma. I'm often amused at those who talk so confidently of their knowledge. The older I get the more questions arise...though I do remember a time when I was quite sure of my knowledge too.
http://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/

While not on the topic exactly, it’s an interesting observation nevertheless that nuclear fission, long thought impossible, was confirmed and explained 8 1/2 months prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Also of some interest is that fission occurs in heavy elements because the nucleus of the atom behaves like a drop of liquid.

artemus_5 OP471 posts12-02-2019 1:29pm@teo_audio Add to that the fact that we only have 4% of the universe from which to get answers and you have a real dilemma. I’m often amused at those who talk so confidently of their knowledge. The older I get the more questions arise...though I do remember a time when I was quite sure of my knowledge too.
http://science.time.com/2013/02/20/telescope-to-hunt-for-missing-96-of-the-universe/

Very true, and I am very much like you in this consciousness process where I discover for myself the amount of ignorance where I am...


But the good news is we are like all the others, and each one of us is in the same boat with all the others, nevermind the amount in knowledge in each of us....The Infinite is the law of the universe before his beginning and after it, like one human life is finite, the universe is finite....But the consciousness and the spiritual universe are infinite.... There is a science of the infinite that is very useful in mathematics...And when we look few minute in this science, or for many years of study, we discover why contemplation is possible and why reducing the infinite to finite is impossible, neither extend the finite to the infinite......I fear that I am off topic completely....I beg your apology ...My best to all...

"...and with that last considered and considerable post, the thread went off into the Deep End.  Cartwheeling into undiscriminating infinity, the nattering neurons naturally negated normal notions niftily...."

Personally, I'm quite happy that 96%+/- of the universe is unaccounted for.....
...it gives us someplace to place Blame. ;)

As in:

"Oh, fruck....look what the universe did to (me/you/us/Them/Everyone/Everything) Today...."  ;)

I suspect we know pretty much everything there is to know about what’s out there in the great behind, I mean great beyond. Time to move on. Get over it. 

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....

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.

Actually there is almost 0 evidence to support this. To support this would require actual experiments with the same problem given to people of diverse IQs and the time of "cognition" to be evaluated. Because of the diverse IQs, that would require a test of exceedingly long completion time for those at the bottom. Not to mention, this is not how "IQ" even works. It is a scale of what percentage of people can achieve a score on a theoretical test, then belled with a standard deviation of 15, such that an IQ of 200 is 6.67 standard deviations above 100. While there is proof that people with high IQs neurons fire faster, and proof of higher connection density, hence passing more detailed information, the numbers above (300,000:1) are just fantasy. There have been some rough looks at speed of learning over the years, that show improvements of 10-30% per standard deviation. As well, it is supportable through evidence that a person with an IQ of 170 may solve a problem that a person with an IQ of 100 never will as they don’t have the ability to process the complexity, but that is much different from a measure of "time to understand".
p.s. I would not use a word like "cognate" unless you know what it means.

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.

And here perhaps we agree, because there appears to be an attempt, based on a lack of understanding of the basic precepts of sampled data systems, to make claims that are factually not supportable. Hence some, like the author, make claims that they feel are obvious, while others, who have an understanding of the underlying science, know, instantly, that those claims are wrong. This has little to do with high IQ though. It is mainly about experience and knowledge. Higher IQ would better allow mapping of knowledge from one area onto another area. i.e. someone with high IQ that understands sampling theory, would understand that examples specific to music would not be required to illustrate timing accuracy of sample systems used for music.

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.

As discussed above, there is 0 evidence of a 300,000:1 range for cognition speed. Similarly, there is little evidence for any wide range of auditory capability. There is little/no evidence of anyone hearing past 20KHz. In tests of detection of time of arrival discrimination, there was no large difference between subjects, and the largest difference was related frequency range of hearing. One would expect some difference in processing complexity, just like intelligence, but that does not magically change fundamental limits such as range of frequencies heard and/or dynamic range, and it appears time of arrival discrimination. Most likely would be the ability to interpret more complexity, but not fundamentals. Smart people may be able to find something in an image faster, but they do not see the image in fundamentally more detail

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.

This goes back to the point about "obviousness". There is no evidence of people with fundamentally superhuman hearing capability whether in dynamic range, time of arrival processing or frequency range. While they may be able to extract more information out of audio, that does not change how much information was there in the first place, which these statements are attempting to imply without providing any evidence that is the case. A better fundamental knowledge of sampled data systems would probably prevent making these inaccurate conclusions.

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. 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.

And yes noise can impact our hearing perception both negative and positive. There is more than just simple amplitude triggering predator/prey hearing. Communication and language processing has resulted in significant processing capabilities w.r.t. tone and pace where "wow and flutter" can have meaning, hence we detect this unnatural artifact.

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)

Rude? perhaps. A straw-man and call to authority more obviously. It seems most definite that did nothing to move the argument forward.

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

No, something about trying to take the complex interpretation of sound that occurs in humans and equate that, without evidence, to a level of "information lost" in an electrical signal, to make a claim about digital systems (or even electrical signals), that cannot be supported by any accepted methods of measurement.

the human hearing system was designed, from the ground up, over millennia...

Something is wrong with this sentence.

Well, for one thing it’s a giant logical fallacy, I’m just not sure which one. It’s possible it’s the sky is blue logical fallacy. Or is it the we are all robots fallacy? Difficult to say. It might also be the I know everything but you don’t understand fallacy.

@geoffkait , oh, I got 'over it' quite awhile ago.  Overanalysis of all of it begat no real answers after all.

One can consider/debate/argue/laugh/whine/freakout/love it/leave it all until your head begins to hurt.  Or run out of breath or excuses.  'Go Zen', go crazy, fall into apathy, fall out, fall in...or just fall.

It doesn't change a thing....It just Is.  Live it or live with it.

Acceptance....as you inferred. ;)  Cheers...*G*

Amusing but i'm worn out--my IQ must be below 100.  Attempting to distill all of this down to its essence i conclude that no one has really refuted atdavid's argument--which i have further distilled down to: "Neil Young is full of s**t"--well, heck--we all knew that to start.

I'm going to the bar with avsjerry to live with it 😀

Neil Young would probably have had a much different outcome had he known any audiophiles who were into tweaks. As I’ve oft observed not much good can come of playing untreated CDs on stock un-tweaked systems, especially in-tweaked CD players. 

I doubt he has any hearing left anyway--especially after all those sessions with Crazy Horse--i suppose i could cut him some slack and interpret his rants as being solely about compression of dynamic range in digital?  Nah, even though i like his early work he's still full of it...

"...not much good can come of playing untreated CDs on stock un-tweaked systems..."

Would Neil Young's CDs become good if treated, or it is a little too much to wish for?

wyoboy
I doubt he has any hearing left anyway--especially after all those sessions with Crazy Horse--i suppose i could cut him some slack and interpret his rants as being solely about compression of dynamic range in digital? Nah, even though i like his early work he’s still full of it...

>>>>Sadly Neil Young was onto the whole CD scam before dynamic range compression set in. But that probably didn’t help. Apparently there are people in this world who find CDs completely objectionable, you know, what with the thinness, shrillness, two dimensionality, and missing information.

Apparently there are people in this world who find CDs completely objectionable, you know, what with the thinness, shrillness, two dimensionality, and missing information.

Its people like that wot cause social unrest. Everybody knows it was, and while the buffalo roam, perfect as it was conceived and will remain so until the end of time. And there are absolutely irreducible math thingees and literally billions and billions of articles to prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. To think otherwise is just plain luddite quackery. I mean who are you going to believe, the hard theoretic evidence or your lying ears.

Contrary to uninformed belief, dynamic compression started before CDs. CDs simply provided a vehicle, because of their lack of restrictions on whole album dynamic range, to make it even louder. Apparently there are people in this world who find vinyls lack of dynamic range, destruction of channel separation, equalization/de-equalization oddities, low SNR, and a host of other artifacts enjoyable.

>>>>Sadly Neil Young was onto the whole CD scam before dynamic range compression set in. But that probably didn’t help. Apparently there are people in this world who find CDs completely objectionable, you know, what with the thinness, shrillness, two dimensionality, and missing information.

atdavid, You appear to be blissfully ignorant of the Loudness Wars. But that’s OK, it’s a common newbie mistake. What I’m referring to isn’t simply dynamic range compression which a great many recordings have always exhibited to some degree. It’s aggressive dynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵

"...literally billions and billions of articles to prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt."

No doubt about it. Billions and billions and billions, in fact

"It’s aggressive dynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵"

Some people actually enjoy that aggressive compression. Some have no objection to the suffocation part, either. To each her/his own.

You are referring to something that some people actual like ... whether we do or not.

geoffkait18,710 posts12-05-2019 10:11amatdavid, You appear to be blissfully ignorant of the Loudness Wars. But that’s OK, it’s a common newbie mistake. What I’m referring to isn’t simply dynamic range compression which a great many recordings have always exhibited to some degree. It’s aggressive dynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵

And some people think The Flintstones is a documentary.

" atdavid, You appear to be blissfully ignorant of the Loudness Wars. But that’s OK, it’s a common newbie mistake. What I’m referring to isn’t simply dynamic range compression which a great many recordings have always exhibited to some degree. It’s aggressive dynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵 "
  OK how do you reverse such a thing, if it can be done? Have you tried Audacity? For my purposes it does seem to make things better most of the time.

No doubt about it. Billions and billions and billions, in fact

I dunno that’s what I heard ...?....

And btw for those keeping score....the quote was...

literally billions and billions

Like what happened to literally, and where did the extra billions come from, its the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth eh. ....no cheap cherry picking or misquoting please, think of the children for heaven’s sake.

And for the love of gawd have you not heard of artistic licence, I mean what’s a poet to do without artistic licence.

Mahlman
It’s aggressivedynamic range compression I’m referring to. You know, the suffocation of the music. 🥵
OK how do you reverse such a thing, if it can be done? Have you tried Audacity? For my purposes it does seem to make things better most of the time.

>>>>>I don’t think it can be reversed. The best thing would be to stop doing it. But since they probably won’t stop it - it’s actually gotten much worse - I obtain CDs issued prior to the start of the Loudness Wars, mid-late 1990s. I also consult the Dynamic Range Database if I’m debating buying a more recent issue. 

atdavid660 posts12-05-2019 11:06amYou are referring to something that some people actual like ... whether we do or not.

>>>>I assume you mean teeny boppers, I.e., someone who doesn’t know the difference.

Interestingly they are files to see this loudness war with some examples on Wikipedia...I learn that today....