How Science Got Sound Wrong

The problem is GK, is that he is Not a world expert, not even remotely on the underlying topic of this whole article. He is an expert on physics and and neurobiology. He is absolutely not an expert on digitization, digital signal processing and reconstruction. Everything he says about human hearing and perception we can assume is 100% right and it makes no difference as the whole premise of his article is underlying flaws in timing in a multi channel audio system that frankly are not there. No expert in signal processing would have ever made the fundamental flaw(s) he did.


I find it disappointing that once again you have made posts that carry absolutely no relevance or information and add nothing to the discussion but appear to be only attempts to hear yourself talk. Feel free to use your obviously extensive free time to find a scientifically relevant paper ( i.e. something published and reviewed) that shows what I said to be false. If you can’t do that, then please go troll elsewhere. There are people here that actually want to learn.

terry9, here is an example that someone created that shows an example of what I am discussing w.r.t. subsample timing:.https://www.dsprelated.com/showcode/207.php  


https://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/26.php


This is fairly simple paper that looks at impacts of noise and distortion on time measurements:.   
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ajer.org/papers/v4(04)/S...


There are literally thousands of articles and papers on subsample timing measurement.

atdavid
The problem is GK, is that he is Not a world expert, not even remotely on the underlying topic of this whole article. He is an expert on physics and and neurobiology. He is absolutely not an expert on digitization, digital signal processing and reconstruction. Everything he says about human hearing and perception we can assume is 100% right and it makes no difference as the whole premise of his article is underlying flaws in timing in a multi channel audio system that frankly are not there. No expert in signal processing would have ever made the fundamental flaw(s) he did.

I find it disappointing that once again you have made posts that carry absolutely no relevance or information and add nothing to the discussion but appear to be only attempts to hear yourself talk. Feel free to use your obviously extensive free time to find a scientifically relevant paper ( i.e. something published and reviewed) that shows what I said to be false. If you can’t do that, then please go troll elsewhere. There are people here that actually want to learn.

>>>>Uh, I already posted something relevant. Hel-loo! You either didn’t read it or you are one of the people who aren’t here to learn. Take your pick, Mr. Know-it-all. You even claimed to know how the brain functions. Give us break! You’re here to bully, not learn. As Noah Cross tells James Gittes in Chinatown, you may think you know what’s going on but you don’t. You have a very limited scope of what affects the sound. I’m just going by what you say. Your/his argument is a typical pseudo skeptical Appeal to Authority. Better luck next time. As expert is defined as someone with a brief case 50 miles from home.

Once again, GeoffKait enters the argument, makes personal insults and jokes, adds absolutely Nothing to the argument, and hijacks the thread making it useless. Unlike Geoffkait’s posts, which are nothing but personal attacks, deflection, and obtuse comments, mine are filled with real information, directly related to the post, and I even provided links to relevant information and downloadable experiments that can be run that show exactly what I am claiming. If you have any, I mean any value at all to add to this thread, you would disprove well anything that I have written .... but no, just more personal attacks because you have ... nothing.   This discussion and the basic premise of the article have little to do with "sound" at all, but whether a digitized system has relative sub-sample timing information. That you attempt to make it about "sound" shows you don't understand the premise of the article and were confused by the title.

Is There A Moderator In The House