How Science Got Sound Wrong

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.

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.

Yeah, and this is probably being really, really conservative.

I have over the years learned the most efficient speaker setup, in my room anyway, is to measure from the corners of each speaker to the side and front walls. Its all set up and fine-tuned first by ear of course, but then once that is done out comes the tape measure. Real handy since if they get jostled vacuuming, laying down to clean connections, or whatever, its real easy putting them exactly back where they were, no guessing, no doubt.

So anyway what I have learned over the years, move even just one speaker even as little as 1/8" and the imaging starts to go. Sad to say how many so-called audiophiles roll their eyes at this. Well, too bad. Its their loss. Whatever you think you have, unless you are dead on, just that one (free!) tweak alone and it will be better.

So one inch to me is a gross error. One inch is so far off I would hear it in an instant. Something a smart-a-- co-worker unintentionally proved one night when he tried to prank me by moving things. By about one inch. I heard it - and figured out what it was and fixed it - so fast (under a minute!) he could not believe it.

So do the math on that one, probably be in the nano-seconds. Whatever. The fact that people can hear a billionth of a second of jitter starts to make a lot more sense when you look at it this way.

Great article and it makes sense to me. While I do enjoy both formats I do enjoy vinyl more...