How Science Got Sound Wrong

Those of us who have PhDs often say it stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper." A guy who studied neural pulses is hardly an automatic authority on audio.

artemus_5

Do yourself a favor. Skim right past the loser wannabes - above and to follow, as night follows day- and appreciate those like me who thank you for posting this brilliant article. 

You said "despite" but for me its actually the technical aspect that I find most fascinating. Every once in a while someone comes along, takes a few seemingly ordinary facts, and combines them in a way that is a light in the darkness. 

Here it is (from the article): 

The guiding principle of a neuron is to record only a single bit of amplitude at the exact time of arrival. Since amplitudes are fixed, all the information is in the timing.

On the other hand, the guiding principle of digitization is to record variable amplitudes at fixed times.

Then just in case you missed it the first time:

So unlike digital recorders, nervous systems care a lot about microtime, both in how they detect signals and how they interpret them. And the numbers really matter: 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.

Boom. Mic drop.

When Michael Fremer says of vinyl, "There's more there there" this is the science behind it.

Good stuff.

Thanks!

My proofing the digital vs analog thing, was to put the imaginary speakers 8 feet apart...

and put the listener 8 feet back, at the tip of an equilateral triangle, kinda thing.

then fire a signal off both speakers at the same time, a sharp tick or ping sound.

then vary the timing of the signal released off one speaker, vs the other.

Humans can generally hear a ’one inch’ shift of the position of the phantom between the speakers ’ping’ sound.

This equates to a perfected zero jitter timing change of 1/100,000th of a second. Which in Nyquist terms, means a clock and signal rate of at least 225khz, with zero jitter.

for a single ping.

never mind the complexities of an orchestra, and all the instruments.

a prior calculation of what is on a record, under the best conditions....is that it comes in at a equivalent sample rate of zero jitter, at around 7 million samples per second. That is how good it’s inter channel transient timing agreeance is.

With some wobble on it, but overall, yes, at the 7 million samples a second rate. We can hear through the wobble, our ear-brain is designed for it. (cancels out heart beats and blood rushing, etc)

I talked about this as the correct counter digital argument (the 16/44 ’perfect’ argument), back in the early 90’s on the original rec.highend binaries groups that were around back then.

I’d get shouted down and called names, even though the self testable logic was right there - out in the open.

The calculation was that the timing, shaping, etc...in a 16/44 recording or playback, was only good up to about 1.05khz, and after that ----it would get progressively worse. (wave form length in time vs clocking and rate- as related to human hearing fundamental design and sensitivities)

Ed Meitner recently did an interview. He mentioned that the chip manufacturers are unwilling to produce the appropriate chip.

The technology to take digital to another level is there. Unfortunately the cost of development and production would make the chips overly expensive. Not enough profit. 

Can't wait for my 45rpm Dire Straits album. Spin baby spin.

Thanks Artemus 5
For an open minded person it is a nice view to consider, maybe not follow blindly, but seems good to take in. Thanks again.