How Science Got Sound Wrong

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.