How Science Got Sound Wrong

Our eyes can see to 324 megapixels. The best digital photography can have 20 megapixel resolution. It wouldn't be a far guess that we not only hear with our ears but with our brains and bodies as well. Just because someone can't hear it doesn't mean the other person can't. The human hearing system may be more sensitive that science can measure

Some people see without eyes....

But the main point is not the ears potential technical resolutive power " per se" but how the sound is perceived and reconstructed by the sensing dynamical " brain-body", and how the" body-brain" react to the sound and help to his perception-construction...

It is a dynamical process where the sound is not a passive object to be perceived but a living phenomenon to be interpretated and inserted in a recreation process, this is a continuous action- reaction between the brain-body-environment, a tripartite process better understood via semiotics...

We can’t see 324 megapixels ... Not even close. We can see about 7 megapixels at most at a single time in our foveal vision. That 324 is an erroneous interpretation of if we scanned our eyes over a field of view but out brains do not really work that way. We have 120 million rods but they are bundled so the resolution is not great and they easily saturate. We have approx 7 million cones which is where our high res viewing comes from.

"If you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears."

I am afraid they would double the dose.

Musical sounds for example are like words and numbers a tough nuts to crack if someone think that these are ready made nuts coming from a tree without seeing the growing dynamical potential which constitute them...Which comes first the egg or the hen?


Sounds are not understood being only object external to a subject, no more than rainbows are understood being only an  external object with a pot of gold at the end...These are phenomenon, this is a philosophical useful concept, not reducible to the concept of object...

One of the greatest conductor and maestro of the last century, is a mathematician by formation, Ernest Ansermet, and he wrote a book of 1 thousand two hundred pages about musical sound perception...There is explained the irreducible depth of the perception-creation of musical sound that transcend the acoustical phenomenon because the body-consciousness is implicated....Good read...

I stumble on to a description of the author of this article unknown to me on the net,
and this author seems to me not a complete moron...I am happy that this description confirm my lecture impression...

«William Softky is a biophysicist who was among the first neuroscientists to understand microtiming, and among the first technologists to build that understanding into algorithms. Thousands have cited his scientific work, his PhD in Theoretical Physics is from Caltech, his name is on 10 patents and two of the companies he inspired were acquired for $160 million total.»

Perhaps after all it is necessary to read his article a second time before discrediting him about a minor point compared to his main thesis....

For me learning to read is precisely that, reading 2 times, the first time the tree always mask the forest, the second time we are ready to see the forest forgetting some obfuscating tree...


Reading is even more painful to begin with and at the end than most people think ….  :)

Can't agree with you Mahgister. Whole premise of the article was that digitized systems only have timing accuracy to a sampling rate level and hence miss micro-timing. That is a 100% false premise. Digitized systems with high SNR have very high timing resolution as long as the system is bandwidth limited which digital audio is ... And so is our auditory system.  As was pointed out above, neurons don't simply fire on/off either.

I am afraid that the tree you see is the only point you want to see...
Like someone who is stuck on the point he want to understand or can understand not any other...

I already said that even if you are right, it is only a point among other important points in the main thesis of this author who argue that the processing of sound is not only about microtiming in digital technology only but linked to the dynamical body brain harmonization of the complex muti sensors in a living event... In his words:« Consuming separate, inconsistent sensory streams that create competing maps of space violates a brain’s design.» That illustrate the main point of his thesis that concern not only digital engineering mathematics but also the body dynamical rhythmic sensors processing...In a word when he speaks about sound he does not speaks about the ears " per se" but about the whole synchronization of ALL the body sensors in a lived situation and not only the brain’s neurons but the entire neuronal matrix in the gesturing body...By the way i am sure that he knows that neurons are not only firing on/ off...

I will not argue further with you i am not competent to argue about microtiming and perception i only pretend that i know how to read that’s all and taking only some point in an article and not all the others is not my method of analytic reading ...My rant was only a reaction to the bashing of the entire article around a tech point that is only that, a point, in a way more complex thesis...My best to you...

No Mahgister you are trying to see things in this article that frankly are not there. I cannot support that point of view.


The whole basis of the claim of the article is a misrepresentation of the timing aspects of digital audio.  This is caused by the author not understanding digitized systems.



Don't try to read more into this article than there is. There are many complexities of sound interpretation but those are a factor of the sounds that reach the ear and the complexities of speakers and room environments, not the electrical signal.

With all my respect to you, and you are way more competent than me on subject linked to audio, the "timing aspect of digital audio" is only a part of the thesis of the author about the perception of sound by the sensitive dynamical body, the main point is the necessity for the brain-body to synchronize and harmonize all the dynamical aspects of the sensors that perceive and interpret the sound phenomenon, this is " the timing aspect" not only about digital audio but mainly about the different maps in the brain-body....

This micro-timing aspect of the brain-body maps is not reducible to the micro timing of digital audio, and because it is not reducible to that, the author object about some negative limitations in audio reproduction... And if i understand you, you object about the limitation of the author in the alleged erroneous way he states his thesis in the realm of digital audio processing...And even if i give to you that, if you are right about that, and i have no reason to think otherwise, the main thesis of the author is about microtiming aspect of the brain body maps not only micro-timing in digital audio "per se"....Then your criticism, even rightful, does not nullify the whole problem that is behind the author reflexion… It is all my point...

I dont attack your critic at all, i am not competent for that, i only say that the main thesis of the writer exceed the point in discussion by you and the main thesis is not reducible to this point of yours and your argument about his understanding of digital processing does not nullify his interesting reflexion, at best it ask for more precision and explanation... ….In some last words of the author:

« It turns out the so-called “emotional resonance” people enjoy together really is a kind of neuromechanical resonance, aided by acoustics and reduced by reproduction. »

Sound perception in human is always a living event, never a simulation...

There is not a little hearing audiophile in my brain, and a second little hearing audiophile in the first little brain audiophile, and a third hearing audiophile in the second brain little audiophile etc to the infinities with all their filters...Micro-timing is first microtiming of the brain-body sensors in the living experience, not micro-timing of digital signals in a simulation first and last...


By the way i am not at all in the position of specialized competence and authority in these matters that will makes me able to read more in this article than there is. (thanks to you if you think that i can) ... I only state what the reading process gives to me : understanding which is there plainly to see...A tree is not the forest....This simply states my defense of this interesting writer and scientist...

My best to you...

atdavid"The whole basis of the claim of the article is a misrepresentation of the timing aspects of digital audio. This is caused by the author not understanding digitized systems."

This is a telling and revealing remark from this user who by all appearances, indications, and demonstrations is somewhere "on the spectrum" as it is now fashionable to explain and who relies on scant slivers of knowledge often gleaned from frenetic Google searches to then issue claims, pronouncements, and declarations based soley, exclusively, and singularly on these incomplete understandings of basic, fundamental, elemental mechanisms.

atdavid"That 324 is an erroneous interpretation of if we scanned our eyes over a field of view but out brains do not really work that way."

This claim reflects a simple, basic, fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of the very essential nature of vision but the pronouncement and declaration is consistent with this poster's habit and practice of issuing proclamations intended to be received with an air of authority but which in actual fact and practice are no more than misguided conclusions derived from a few slivers of fact gleaned from Google searches.

I’m afraid things are much worse than audiophiles think they are. Are sensory perceptions are influenced by not only the obvious physical conscious reality around us but also by the subconscious physical reality, that over which we have no control. It is what it is, it’s the way we developed over hundreds of thousands of years, how humans selectively evolved to be able to survive in a world fraught with danger. Danger all around. Danger from above 🦅 danger from below 🐊 danger from all manner of man eating beasts 🐅. His senses of hearing and vision are especially alert 🚨 to any hint of danger. And his adrenaline starts pumping and his legs start moving as soon as he detects a threat. Feets don’t fail me now! 🏃‍♂️

Man has very evolved extremely complex and clever threat detection and threat avoidance systems. You could say the brain is like a transceiver, operating consciously and subconsciously. You can’t just turn them off. You could even go so far as to say it’s akin to Mind-Matter Interaction. Or even ESP. In this modern world with all manner of potential threats colors, some “unnatural” shapes, our personal communications devices 📱 connected to an uncertain and dangerous world 😬 and many other things too numerous to list here can affect our perception of sound.

As fate would have it, humans are in virtually CONSTANT stress because there are so many “triggers” in our local environment. Thus, Mr. Audiophile sitting in the comfort of his Lazy Boy cannot distinguish between the conscious physical reality and the subconscious mental reality. He can’t blame the sound entirely on the integrity of the acoustic waves.

Mahgister,
I think I get where you are coming from, but the author of the article was attacking digital audio at the signal level, not at the "sound getting to the ear" level. Sound is complex. Recorded signals ... not so much.

It seems we understand each other at least, a little bit....

Let me be clearer, the writer is not attacking digital audio technology " per se" … At the end of his article his remarks are very clear about the direction that it will be necessary to take to improve digital technology....Then this writer is not a "goofy" lover of vinyl denying the value of digital audio like some in this thread suggest him to be... This writer is not attacking digital audio at all, he think about the necessary linkage between the digital audio imperatives, and like you just express it in your words the "sound getting to the ear" level...Then your reading of this article fixating on an technical point does not do justice to this man ...

This guy credentials are linked to tech innovation but he was also a theorist in neuro physical sound perception... Listen to him :

« The Coming Microtime Technologies

I predict the emergence of three new technologies that could change the world by reconnecting people.

1) Devices that quantify sound the right way. It shouldn’t be hard to create a multi-function “tricorder.” It could measure someone’s sonic environment in all kinds of ways: decibels (min, max, median, average), frequency distribution, suddenness, repetition and any other signal parameters that matter to ears and brains. Better yet, when paired via a data channel with a matching tricorder on the other end of a phone line, it could track sensory metrics of the call itself, such as latency, latency jitter, hotspots and dead spots in pattern-space and (with stereo) 3D reconstruction resolution. This device would provide sensory-nutrition information, akin to the nutrition labels on foods, enabling healthy decisions.

2) Microtime recording and stereo. A video technology called an “event camera” already exists, which uses pulses much like the nervous system does. Audio pulse-tracking could underlie a whole new form of analog recording, tossing amplitude and keeping microtime instead. When that recording scheme is used for stereo, played back through well-placed speakers, listeners will experience the sharpest, fullest 3D sonic field possible short of real live sound.

3) Micropresence = microtime telepresence. Imagine marrying microtime stereo with remote-video “telepresence” for the best interpersonal connection possible over distances. One very good arrangement would be an augmented-reality system (connecting matched rooms) that superimposes your conversation partner’s face consistently and coherently atop your own visual space. Microtime visual cues like micro-expressions will be partly visible even on a 3D face scanned by normal video. When combined with microtime sound properly aligned with the speaker’s mouth and throat, you will experience the most coherent sensori-motor experience possible remotely.

The sooner technology restores the microtime connections that humans need to thrive, the sooner we will thrive again, leaving loneliness behind for good »

Now I must go for the day, I wish the best to you and to all....

But mahgister, he does very clearly attack digital, and does it in a very specific way. He claims that the limitation on timing of a digitized system is limited to 1/(sample rate) which for 44.1KHz is about 23 microseconds.

His expertise does not extend to signal processing or even specific aspects of the auditory system.

There is no evidence at this point that human hearing is anything but a bandwidth limited system, that limit around 20KHz. He makes claims about fast neuron firing and implies that means there is higher bandwidth, but that is a false equivalence. A higher amplitude 20Khz signal reaches a neuron triggering level faster than a low amplitude 20Khz signal, but that does not mean the bandwidth is anything but 20Khz.

His statement that timing in a digitized system is limited to 1/(sample rate) is simply wrong. Not a little bit wrong but very very wrong. He bases his whole article precept on a digitized system not being able to support microtiming, all based on his incorrect notion that a digitized system is limited to timing resolution of 1/(sample rate). He fails to recognize the bandwidth limitations of our auditory system and that a bandwidth limited digitized system has very high timing resolution (and accuracy). I believe his two errors are not realizing that a low frequency signal can trigger a comparator (neuron) much faster that 1/frequency as it is simply an amplitude comparator, and because of that, not recognizing that a digitized system that is bandwidth limited has high temporal precision.

Doom and gloom......stop and smell the roses.

It's all the high frequencies.  The better the digital gets, the better the high frequencies not getting as messed up.  Digital amp actual is pretty good with the bass, but don't let it near your tweeters.  Many people say digital CD is almost if not equal vinyl especially with hi-res digital.  Many people are making it out like digital vs. vinyl but it should be phrased within the context of where in the frequency band it messes up the most - high vs. low.  

By the way, it's hard to imagine this thread is longer than the break-in thread.  Never thought anything could be longer than break-in, no pun intended.  

The bass frequencies of CDs aren’t that great, either, if you ask me. I’m just trying to be helpful here. The bass of CDs - unless certain uh, protocols are followed - lack definition, depth, fullness, slam, pop, bloom and pizazz. In fact, I’d opine bass frequencies are largely missing in action. Afterthought - the midrange ain’t that great, either. Yes, I know, a lot of people out there will say, But my system sounds fabulous! 

The bass frequencies of CDs aren’t that great, either, if you ask me

I am pretty sure you've got a CDP at your home.  

«Even the best CDs can only resolve time down to 23 microseconds, while our nervous systems need at least 10 times better resolution, in the neighborhood of two to three microseconds. In crass amplitude terms, that missing microtime resolution seems like “only” tiny percentage points. However, it carries a whopping 90% of the resolution information the nervous system cares about. We need that microtime to hear the presence and depth of sounds outside us and to sense others’ emotions inside us.» William Softky

My understanding of his point is that Softky say that even if a digitized system that is bandwidth limited has high temporal precision, the digitized system does not have enough precision, for example in the 2-3 microseconds limits...

The body-brain sensors interact synchronistically in this 2-3 micro-seconds windows, and for Softky, digitized system lack this microtime synchronization between the lived 3-d real world where sound lives in synchronization with the body brain sensors...The digitized system does not incorporated all the information that is received by the body brain sensors, and the body-brain sensors are not reducible to the ears-brain system, reduced itself to the digital simulation of his capabilities...Processing sounds begins with the body movement not only the passive theoretical hypothetical actual ear-brain system.

The microtime concept of Softky is neurophysical and is linked to that multi scale synchronization of the body-brain and not only to the sampling processes in digitized audio...


This is my understanding, then your critic is, even if valid, miss his whole argument...And that argument of Softky is a valid problem of reseach whose goal is precisely to improve digitized system in their capabilities to emulate in the future this multi scale synchronization maps implicated in the hearing process, that is way more complicate that what say digitized system theory actually about sampling processes and their particular restricted concept of microtime ...


I am in no way competent to discuss all that, less knowledgeable than most people here in digital audio, but my understanding of this article is contrary to your dismissing of it because of this precise point in digital information technology about the author’s alleged erroneously concept of micro time in sampling processes....

The concept of micro time of the writer is complex and has it roots in the body-brain synchronization sensors, and is not reducible to the concept of micro time inherent in sampling processes... In a word digital audio technology in general suppose that hearing is reducible to a concept of microtime not complex enough to incorporate the lived experience of the body brain sensors and not enough refine also...

The sound events conveyed by the body-brain sensors, implicating 2-3 microseconds intervals, are events for the whole body-brain, and are not isomorph in a timelike manner to the simulation maps of the sound constructed in audio digital technology, because these timing maps of the brain-body and the body brain flows are not reducible to the simpler artificial time maps of digital audio tech that recreated sound in their limited microtime sampled environment ...

I apologize for my atrocious use of English ….And if so, I apologize for my lack of understanding, my only excuse is i try to understand this article, and I cannot dismiss Softky reflexion on the sole basis of Atdavid criticism... My best to him and to all...

atdavid"clearthink, IF you are going to *** Attempt *** to troll me, which is exactly what you are doing this morning with your posts, you may want to pick up a few relevant degrees and 25 or so years of R&D experience."

I understand that you have become chastened, embarrassed, and uncomfortable because you're "reasoning" was exposed as based on two pillars of fact that were widely separated by a ocean of ignorance and misunderstanding sufficiently wide to pilot entire fleets of ships through. I can only recommend that in the future you expand you're research from relying only on Wikipedia to more authoritative, comprehensive, recognized original sources because your own direct knowledge while it does include some interesting and sound facts is woefully incomplete and scattered. In the interim period I will try to be more gentle with you should I need to correct for others you're misunderstandings and confusion I now realize that you are very sensitive and probably timid person who's feelings are easily bruised.

atdavid"Nothing in my reasoning was exposed, no ignorance shown, or misunderstandings sufficiently wide for even your limited understanding to squeeze through."

I know that you have badly hurt feelings and I will try to be more caring and gentle with you in the future I can tell that you are a very sensitive timid individual but some of you're assertions are so extremely mistaken and erroneous that it is difficult to sound neutral when correcting them. 

atdavid"Nope, no hurt feelings at all."

It is good to portray a brave front when your feelings have been so badly hurt but it would be a good idea for you to talk them over with someone you trust such as your mom or teacher you will feel better I promise you!

In a word atdavid,

2-3 microseconds of real brain-body continuous time is not the same as the hypothetical 2-3 microseconds of sampling times in audio technology simulation, except if you reduce the synchronization of all the body-brain maps to one and only one simulation map, this time map implicated in the sampling process simulation of audio Technology...


Even if Softky is wrong about the point you indicated, and that the extraction of information at the scale of 2-3 microsecond time is possible , in the sampling theoretical condition of audio technology; the main point of Softky about sound processing implicate first the real neurological microtime maps information of the body-brain sensors irreducible to digital audio tech. then to one digital time map...


Perhaps I am wong and all perception is reducible to Fourier analysis in an audio channel ...I dont think so, Softky neither it seems about the neurological basis of hearing perception...


My "one word" is finally many words... :)

I think my lecture of the Softky article posted here is confirmed by the informations contained in this other one :

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.08916.pdf

We should also consider the difference between "perceived resolution" vs. "processed resolution".  For example, when we told someone we "heard things", it's our brain told us that we "heard things", but it's possible that the brain processed a lot more information but only let the "conscious mind" what the brain thinks of what is necessary.  I supposed that's what psychology categorize that as "conscious" vs. "subconscious".

There are human beings that are capable of extraordinary ability such as performing mathematical operations that only a computer could.  That means that our brain is capable of things that at least our conscious mind is not aware of.  But I am glad I don't have that ability since it would drive me crazy and of course why because I have a computer do that for me.

I've said it before that our body is like a machine.  In order to process information, or specifically to be able to localize sound, if anything for the sake of survival, the brain needs to perform "mathematics".  Just like some underwater mammals, they can possess "sonar" capability like a man-made submarines, and their brains are made up of the same stuffs as our brains.  But I am glad I don't have any "sonar" capabilities since I just want to chill out at the beach and enjoy looking at the hot chics.  Lols, that's actually a four sentence paragraph.   

mahgister,

The timing resolution, within the bandwidth limited system, is orders of magnitude better than the sampling rate at even fairly low SNR. Within a bandwidth limited system, which the "mechanical" auditory system starts as, continuous time can be represented, effectively perfect, by sampled data points. It really is the same under those limits of bandwidth and there is absolutely nothing to indicate our acoustic perception is not bandwidth limited.

There have been experiments done on temporal resolution w.r.t. bandwidth of the signal. At some point, increasing bandwidth stops increasing temporal resolution, and that stop point is within the limits of the audio bandwidth as commonly discussed.

Unfortunately, the author seemed to be writing from a position of "feelings" as opposed to well researched science. There is research, math, even well accepted scientific knowledge that directly refutes his position.

Atdavid
you persist to reduce, to a simple translation in a simulation model, the hearing processings in the body-brain sensors (including more than just the 2 ears sensor) a process more complex, that implicate more synchronized continuous mappings than in one Shannon simulation channel... Then how can i say my point that is invisible to your fixation ?

The successive operation of compression and decompression of a natural object,be it a sound or a nude woman, is possible with a great degree of accuracy, nobody discuss that,neither Softky nor me, but there is a price to pay? Guess what is the price? This is the central point around the Softky argument, and the precise amount of information available via Fourier analysis in a Shannon channel, be it the information amount you point at, or the different amount of information Softky point at, whatever amount of information   there is available will not change the central fact pointed by Softky ’s article , that is to say, the price to pay...


Here is some bits of info that will gives you the beginnings of the answer:


«But variability in the digital world has a very different structure from the “noise” known to science. In one sense, digital variability is lower,having been specifically enriched to appear to our sensory systems as coherent 3D images or sounds rather than as random snow or hiss. In that sense, moment-to-moment digital inputs are designed to seem low noise and clean. But digital sources are hyperdimensional patterns, which (unlike real things) can change discontinuously, thereby violating the continuous natural laws a nervous system expects. The unnatural structure of digital variability can make it appear far more trustworthy and predictable than it actually is.» William Softky

mahgisterAtdavid "you persist to reduce to a simple translation in a simulation model the hearing processings in the body-brain sensors(including more than just the 2 ears) a process more complex, that implicate more synchronized continuous mappings than in one Shannon simulation channel... Then how can i say my point that is invisible to your fixation ?"

There is not much you can do to help him understand the matter is beyond his limited understandings which are acquired mostly from Wikipedia so he can not even ponder, develop, and articulate a coherent, reasoned, logical response but if you point that out he will say something illogical such as "you don't like handicapped people" or "French toast is better than "fritters." 

clearthink,

What spectrum were you talking about in your "on the spectrum" statement? It is quite unclear, I think.

mahgister,

I think you are trying to attach far too much complexity to this topic that is not a factor of the article.  It does not matter if there is 1, 2, or 1000 sensors, there is still just 2 signals, right and left, or perhaps more in a surround system. We only need to get those 2 signals right, no matter how many sensors there are.


A digitized and reconstructed analog signal with a given bandwidth, is no more compressed and decompressed than an analog signal that is stored and played back through a system of limited bandwidth. Arguable, modern digital systems "compress" far less, where "compress" is meant to mean throwing away data.

Yes, it really is as simple (or not so simple) as Shannon-Nyquist. Shannon-Nyquist even predicts that you can hear tones/signals that are lower in amplitude than the signal to noise ratio, both for analog and digital.  For all the talk about micro-timing, etc., there is no evidence that our auditory systems is anything but bandwidth limited. In fact, the experiments clearly show that these "micro-timing" "events", i.e. detecting time of arrival within <5 microseconds, is not improved by increased audio bandwidth. 


This statement below by Sofky is just lazy gobblygook.  Digital "variability" is neither lower nor higher, but digital implementations are lower in noise typically. If you don't like that, then simply add some noise back at playback. A reconstructed digital signal in the analog domain is absolutely as continuous as any other bandwidth limited signal. "Continuous natural laws"? ... huh?  There is nothing "unnatural" about the structure of digital "variability". That is well, a really weird statement, that I can only see someone who has a distorted understanding of bandwidth limited systems making. Hyperdimensional ... that is some hyperbole on his part. No, same dimension as the "real" world, just storing it in a different and more accurate fashion.

But variability in the digital world has a very different structure from the “noise” known to science. In one sense, digital variability is lower,having been specifically enriched to appear to our sensory systems as coherent 3D images or sounds rather than as random snow or hiss. In that sense, moment-to-moment digital inputs are designed to seem low noise and clean. But digital sources are hyperdimensional patterns, which (unlike real things) can change discontinuously, thereby violating the continuous natural laws a nervous system expects. The unnatural structure of digital variability can make it appear far more trustworthy and predictable than it actually is. (Sofky)

Atdavid you are very intelligent, very knowledgeable in audio theory, and I will not be able to point to you something you cannot want to see or does not want to understand.... My limited knowledge even if I can read very well, cannot make the deaf ears and the blind see... I accept the verdict of ignorance applied to me because I am ignorant in audio engineering but I can read a text, and William Softky is not an ignorant goofy...

All my rant is there for you, not to retract your objection, that is probably if not a good one, at least an  interesting one, I dont know for sure, but my rant is there only to point to you the interesting view, the wider context, where the opinion of Softky comes from... But there is nothing more to say for me, you said it yourself...Shannon-Nyquist explain all that need to be explained in the neurology of the brain-body maps and mappings like in audio technology the rest is superfluous words of this Softky... After you had for sure reduce anything that had to be reduced to this only possibility by restricting the general problem that the thesis of Softky raises and declaring him ignorant, or at least in total error about a point in audio...


I thank you for you patience with me and your politeness.... I appreciate it, particularly here...I am truly yours even if we are not in the same wagon for that read...My best to you...

You are always polite Mahgister, so I would never think to be anything but in return :-)

I don't want to leave you with the impression I don't think that complex things happen in our brain/bodies we don't fully understand yet, and that is why I will never discount preferences, i.e. like a preference for vinyl because of the unique "presentation" of vinyl, and that could be things we think of as artifacts like higher noise, lower channel separation, even effects of equalization/de-equalization (which is real compression), etc.  Even today when most vinyl is cut from digital masters, many still prefer vinyl. That could just be the mastering, but if there is more to it, it would be good to understand what that is, so that we could simulate it for those that prefer it. When vinyl is cut from a digital master, any argument for technical superiority of vinyl disappears.  There are of course some who claim that you must have a full analog process for best sound, but even analog master tapes have their limitations, and perhaps it is those limitations we like.  These arguments get so consumed in what is "technically" better, that it is almost impossible to have a discussion about what is preferable.

Shannon-Nyquist explain all that need to be explained in the neurology of the brain-body maps and mappings like in audio technology the rest is superfluous words of this Softky... After you had for sure reduce anything that had to be reduced to this only possibility by restricting the general problem that the thesis of Softky raises and declaring him ignorant, or at least in total error about a point in audio...

atdavid"Libellous statement. Either back in up with facts, or take it down. If you want to address something that I specifically wrote, go ahead, but try to act like an adult and stop the personal attacks. Also, don’t try to hide the fact you used a slander"

ha ha it looks like you got your law degree from Wikipedia or maybe Perry Mason also you are confused about the nature, basis, and definitions of libel and slander so good luck with your case!

It is not for you to limit, restrict, or discourage posters and contributors to this forum from sharing, expressing, or explaining they’re thoughts, observations, or opinions and regardless of you’re opinions or threats.  

One of Bob Carver’s salesmen also threatened me with legal action which is something American’s like to do when they are hurt and seek to have someone held accountable for they’re personal pain but of course he never followed up and for the same reason that you won’t/can’t follow-up on your threat which is just a hollow effort at intimidation, harassment, and bullying.

I know that my revealing the flaws, errors, and misunderstandings in you’re "scientific" reasoning has hurt you’re feelings and sense of self-esteem but these will likely recover and as I have already explained to you now that I realize how sensitive a person you are I will attempt to be more gentle with you in the future I do not want to hurt you in any way but of course I am free to expose you’re "malpractice" of science (I don’t know what else to call it!) whenever you commit one of you’re "arguments" based only on what you studied at Wikipedia University.

glupson"What spectrum were you talking about in your "on the spectrum" statement"

English is not my first or even primary, main, or dominate language and I was trying to politely refer to those hear who appear to be on the "spectrum" which I am told but could be mistaken is a polite way to refer to anyone with autism or Asperger's or similar syndromes. It is readily apparent to me that there are regular contributor's here who are on the spectrum and I do not mean this as an insult in fact many such individuals are very smart! In fact my company employs several hundred engineers in various of it's divisions and I know for certain that some of them fall under this group and they are excellent contributors to our work! if there is a more polite way to refer to this population in American English I would be grateful to you if you could please explain.

atdavid"And what is your psychological issue clearthink? I am going to go with Borderline Personality Disorder A person with borderline personality disorder (one of the most common types) tends to have disturbed ways of thinking, impulsive behaviour and problems controlling their emotions."

This is most striking, impressive, and revealing! You have obtained degrees in electronics, the law, and now medicine all from Wikipedia, and you still have time to post hear, threaten, harass, and intimidate other users all to conceal that I have hurt you're feelings by exposing you're "phony science" theories and proclamations. You'll be gone from this group soon the moderators will not long term abide by your nonsense.

atdavid"Keep making these posts clearthink. With every single one you show that you have absolutely nothing to add to conversations"

Your feelings are hurt, little American snowflake but they will recover in time because you are clearly "a very stable genius."

atdavid"And what is your psychological issue clearthink? I am going to go with Borderline Personality Disorder"

I urge you to seek prompt competent, experienced, compassionate medical care it is obvious that you have become obsessed with my superior intellect, technical knowledge, and linguistic skills and you now have lost the ability to control you’re impulses, resulting in these relentless attack posts that you think will ease you’re pain and suffering but which only serve to further isolate you from the human contact you crave. A combination of various medications, interventions, and treatment protocols are likely to be effective but they can only be prescribed, monitored, and adjusted by a professional medical doctor.

I am sorry to be forced to say this because I do not want to hurt you’re feelings any further than I have but if you continue this pattern of behaviors I will alert the moderators to you’re failure to observe the group’s standards of use.