How Science Got Sound Wrong

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...