How Science Got Sound Wrong
Let me guess. People who know nothing about science trying to take over?
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...
https://www.fairobserver.com/more/science/neil-young-vinyl-lp-records-digital-audio-science-news-wil...
397 responses Add your response
geoffkait18,384 postsThere are 18 384 proofs on this forum there is no such mechanism. And evidence is growing. |
"There's a mechanism that thwarts to some degree, intense sounds, to prevent ear damage."Not fully on that track, but sort of, I have been asking for a while, why, while arguing, people do not mention how loud the music was playing. It is one of the big determinates of how you will perceive sounds. It is not even about two CDs. let's say, having matched levels. It is about the level that reaches the human. |
All of these talks about hearing and measurements reminded me of an older article I had bookmarked. It may be of value: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jan/31/human-hearing-is-highly-nonlinear Also of note, in trying to find other articles I came across this little known fact: a mechanism in the middle ear creates a force 40 times that of the original signal in order to transmit that sound the rest of the way. There's a mechanism that thwarts to some degree, intense sounds, to prevent ear damage. Considering that, and other thoughts and mentions that we all hear differently, each of us has a unique way of hearing. Not superhuman hearing, but better and/or worse hearing, just like eyesight, taste, etc. So it may be just that variable that gives rise to the notion that some of us are hearing things that we shouldn't, but do in fact, hear. Maybe it took better technology of music reproduction to ferret out those who can hear those differences at what used to be a threshold that no one should hear. Maybe it was just a matter of time. I've met people who can't see the difference in some TV monitors that purport better resolution and some who can easily spot it, even from a distance, and it wasn't until the advent of those new monitors and the gear that precedes them that those differences were made apparent. Just some food for thought, and not a pie fight. All the best, Nonoise |
Talking about weird haircuts ... https://www.boredpanda.com/funny-hair-styles/?utm_source=search.yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic |
Ok you're getting much too technical. When I play analog there is more toe tapping, body movements etc with keeping to the beat. I don't have that same experience playing digital much at all. Taking to account the wow and flutter of analog playback systems then I should be toe tapping etc much more to digital! Maybe the analogy of tubes vs solid state would fit here. Tubes have much more distortion but the harmonics are not as offensive as solid state. Just rattling off here. |
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.Now I have to read whole thread to find out about these differences. As a start, I would like to remind any interested party that hairstyles may, in theory, influence the sound more than Gadolinium infused power cord cover. Is there a thread about audiophile hairstyles? |
Sorrry artemus_5, you did post a very valid question, and unfortunately I got carried away responding to ad hominem attacks and not addressing your question. I reposted what I think was your question below. For my answer, I want to define "Information", i.e. what the recording engineer intended to commit to media, whether vinyl, CD, streaming whatever, and "sound" namely what comes out of the speakers and gets to our ears, and perception ... how we interpret what reaches our ears. From that:
I see it repeated regularly that we can’t measure everything. There are three aspects of that in audio, going back to my premise, information, and sound. We obviously cannot measure all aspects of perception, we are all built differently so the best we could hope is to measure individuals. Even measuring the sound that reaches the ear we cannot, or at least from a practical aspect cannot measure "everything". We would need to measure the incoming sound arriving in a spherical pattern at the ear. However, information, i.e. how well the original "signal" is faithfully reproduced in the digital/electrical domain, we can measure with great accuracy (think of all the amazing measurements we can make today). So, in a long about way, we can objectively and quantifiably say whether "something" provides a more true communication of information, but what we can’t say is whether you will prefer that truer communication or not. I really don’t understand the heated argument w.r.t. CD or Vinyl, some prefer one, some prefer the other. Who cares. Where it gets dicey is when claims about their "information" ability get tossed around willy nilly .... which leads to all the mud-slinging w.r.t. things like cable and interconnects, things that directly impact information, something we can measure very very well, especially when you take the next point into account .... Adding a final thought, there has been a lot of work done in the fields of psychoacoustics, neuroscience, neurophysics, neurobiology, etc. that has put bounds around "audible". i.e. we have not been able to show conclusively any audibility beyond about 20KHz. There were some experiments that suggested we may "perceive" higher frequencies, but later it was shown it was as likely there was harmonic modulation either in the transducer or the environment. Unfortunately, you also see misapplication of studies, a common one being that since we can detect arrival times between the ears to the microsecond level, then we must be able to detect frequencies beyond 20Khz, and/or we need >44.1KHz sample rate, neither of which is true. The other misuse of this fact is to suggest phase response is super important, but this properties is the ability to measure the time difference of a signal, any signal, arriving to two ears. Screwing up the phase does not matter, though consistency between left and right channels on the screw up would be important. If the "bound" is felt to be fuzzy, we can always add tolerance when comparing it to "information". I.e. if we are never able to show 0.1% THD is audible, under any testable condition, then a device that has 0.01% THD or lower is likely inaudible. Similarly, i.e. we cannot detect a 1db difference in level at 15Khz, then any product making a less than 0.1db difference is likely to be inaudible. There are many similar measures. The biggest question I have is this. How can an objective quantitative answer be given to such a subjective subject as music, its reproduction and one’s interpretation of what they hear? Oh sure, we can give some ideas or thoughts about it. But our knowledge only goes so deep. One may look at figures and speculate what should be heard. But can we absolutely know what IS heard by 100 different people listening to the same music on the same equipment? I don’t think so. My $.02 worth. |
in the same general way tuning-forks help experts tune pianos or harpsThat's a HOWLER. The CONN StroboConn came out in 1936. The CONN ST-6 came out in 1959. Peterson Model 400 came out in 1967. Today, tuners clip on a guitar head and run on a watch battery. In 50 years, I haven't seen a piano professionally tuned with a fork. Wikipedia article to annoy Mr K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_tuner |
| Post removed |
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. |
How can he be on to something if the whole premise of his article is wrong?
|
The amount of effort some people will put into supporting their delusions and dishonesty is really astounding. aerospace ENGineering. Batchelor's level. The basis of most of semiconductor physics is in theoretical physics ... likely far more than aerospace engineering. That does not mean I studied "theoretical physics", nor does it mean that I have a degree in "theoretical physics". There is a big difference between applying concepts of theoretical physics, which while theoretical, provide more than enough accuracy for engineering tasks, and being an actual theoretical physicist (i.e. the person working on those underlying theories). For quadrupling down gk, without providing anything viable to refute your claim to be a theoretical physicist, nor to refute you claiming to have a degree in theoretical physics, all you have proven ... is what is wrong with many audiophiles. |
Exhibit A - Aerospace Engineering, Wikipedia page excerpt Some of the elements of aerospace engineering are:[16][17] Abbreviated list for uh, brevity
|
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.” |
Thanks you for linking that ahofer, I was rather appalled at the article, especially from someone espousing expertise, but the whole premise of the article is obviously outside his area of the article. Unfortunately, as you can see on this thread, while certainly there are people who understand this, and others who want to learn, others are just content to throw ad-hominems at anyone who pokes their bubble. |
ahofer, That's correct. Lots of highly credible, non-charlatan experts weighing in in the thread I linked. It's certainly fine to prefer non-digital recordings, but not to have your own imaginary explanation of how digital recording and reproduction actually work. The author is engaging in the latter. And there's no way Neil Young can tell the difference between hi-res and redbook. Even if he hadn't abused his hearing for decades. |
Long after the game is over, the stands are clear, and the lights are turned off, geoff will still be screaming at the empty umpires chair about the call that the video replay clearly shows was out. ieales486 posts11-18-2019 6:19pmGame, set and match |
See what I mean. Even when faced with absolute evidence, that he does not have a degree in theoretical physics, he triples down and tries to make excuses instead of admitting error. Geoff may be the only person on the planet that claims their Batchelor's level aerospace engineering degree is a degree in theoretical physics .... I am thinking the Real theoretical physicists would take exception with that. Last time 3 of the 4 courses he listed were just typical undegrad level engineering courses. You would think someone claiming to be smart would know the difference between taking electives and having a degree in something. Are you ready for quadrupling down? Get out the popcorn, this should be good!
|
| Post removed |
And even when faced with overwhelming evidence of being wrong, the clique will never admit it and just doubles down on lies ... English majors vs Tweakers |
Here is an example of being wrong. "Geoffkait claims he is a theoretical physicist .. it’s right in these forums. Then geoffkait claims he never said he had a degree in theoretical physics". atdavid proves that geoffkait actually has a degree in aeronautical engineering (check UVA records), then proves geoffkait actually wrote that he had a degree in theoretical physics (he wrote that in a forum). See, that is called addressing the content and proving a claim to be wrong. atdavid makes a "claim". geoffkait’s response, "you’re wrong" and "you cut and paste from wikipedia", etc. No proof that atdavid’s claims are wrong, and usually an ad-hominem. Notice a difference? geoffkait and a clique of others like to tell me (and others) that they are wrong, but unsurprisingly, can never show how we are wrong. |
Okay hotshot, Mr. "clear"think. I am correct about 15% of the time huh? That is called an ad hominem. Look it up if you don't understand what the word means. It is an ad hominem as it is an attack on me, but not on anything that I have actually posted. You will be hard pressed to show even once where I am incorrect, let alone 85% of my posts. I will never claim to be perfect, but I know what I know. Oh, and please do learn what the word, "Evidence" means before trying to make some silly claims of where I am wrong. clearthink972 posts11-18-2019 3:53pm |
ahofer, To be clear, you mean the assertions in the linked article are not remotely accurate? I only ask that because people will read only the few words you wrote and hear what they want to think ;-) I looked up the author and sent an email directly showing where he was wrong. I also invited a former colleague to contact him/the website as he has more academic clout than I do. Nice, but unfortunate that I am not the only one that saw through the fallacies of the article. |
I don't think the assertions about timing resolution are remotely accurate. An alternate perspective: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-warning-there-is-a-new-web-article-going-aroud-that-is-a-crock-of-schmidt.9511/ |
atdavid"When You can prove anything that I have said is wrong, instead of just throwing ad-hominems, maybe I will take your posts seriously. Until then, you are just bloviating in the wind. "You have repeatedly and consistently shown to be factually wrong and materially deceptive in many posts. You have only been hear a short while so it is easy to review your posts and identify those where you are in error I understand why you are uncomfortable with you’re mistakes being so frequently disproven and rendered uselss but as I kindly pointed out you are correct about 15% of the time! |
Thank you for further contributing to the spreading of misinformation clearthink. When You can prove anything that I have said is wrong, instead of just throwing ad-hominems, maybe I will take your posts seriously. Until then, you are just bloviating in the wind. It’s really weird why so many people fight so hard to discredit someone, and spend so little time discrediting what they say. Is that because you can’t? I really must think that is it. clearthink971 posts11-18-2019 1:46pm |
atdavid"It's a full time job keeping up with the misinformation being spread " With more than 375 posts in less than 30 days of membership hear you are doing an excellent job of contributing to the misinformation even if you are correct about 15% of the time. |
| Post removed |