How Science Got Sound Wrong

terry9,

Are you familiar with Shannon-Nyquist theorem? I provided the rather long-winded wikipedia article link below.

In a bandwidth limited system, if the sampling rate is 2x the bandwidth, you can capture all the information, including relatively timing information. I.e. with a 100KHz sample rate, you can capture everything in up to a 50Khz bandwidth limited signal. For practical reasons of analog filters, you normally want to sample 4x or more the target analog bandwidth so by 1/2 the sample rate there is no more signal.

Within the realm of signal capture and reconstruction, I would consider this established fact, though many, without the requisite knowledge, do not understand (or at least accept) the premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

A system, with a 20Khz bandwidth, can still respond/detect a signal in microseconds. A real world impulse may last only a few microseconds, however, as your ear is bandwidth limited, you won't perceive an impulse as only lasting a few microseconds, you will perceive it lasting 10's of microseconds or longer, just as when you hit a woofer with a short impulse, it does not stop moving at the end of the impulse.  In those respects, you can reconcile both a 20khz bandwidth limited system and microsecond impulse timing.

akgwhiz1 posts11-15-2019 12:32amNew here but I found his points, yes his science, very intriguing. To the point I thought, heck, hes got it right. But I cant help but wonder, even a fully digital stream/source/path ultimately has to be reproduced through a vibrating speaker. It seems that this is a massive integration or smoothing, each connected (albeit complex) peak and trough lasting way longer than the neural timing. Accepting his points, maybe this is digital's way to get by as well as it does. BTW, I'm not picking sides, just the way I stated it.  

Just when I'm sure its all just swirling down the drain along comes glupson with this:

This year is coming to an end.

Is it time to start submitting "Post of the year" nominations?

This has to be one of the strong contenders.

"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."

This is not even a post. This is literature.

Indeed.

Thanks!

I’m afraid that article is the same old song and dance. What is much more interesting are the ideas of Peter Belt and his whole free wheeling approach to sound and how the local environment affects our perception of sound. These ideas help explain why cell phones 📱  in the room degrade the sound, why books in the room degrade the sound, why unused cables and electronics in the room degrade the sound. Even why our hearing is degraded by having clocks  ⏰ or watches in the room. Things of that nature. Mind-Matter Interaction. Mind over matter. Much of the standard bologna of the theory of perception of sound has become trite.

I found it interesting.

I find Analog LP's (lots of old analog record cutter produced ones) and Reel to Reel, (analog mic to analog tape) more INVOLVING than Digital.

I have simplified the difference as "Analog gets Overtones Right". 

I wish the preserved timing advantages of analog, and the resultant timing of overtones was discussed.
.............................................

I agree about precise positioning of speakers.

Happily I have an old wood floor, like grid paper on the floor, which allows me to move them into a few 'situational' positions without a ruler, including matched toe-in. I squished a speck of paper into the grid for the 2 front speaker corners.

They are very heavy, on 3 wheels, (3 will always settle with no wobble, and their weight prevents any vibration, no spikes needed for these). 

............................................
I also believe in time alignment of various frequencies, so I tilted my speakers base a bit back (also changes reflections off both floor and ceiling, and resultant back wall).