You are trying to take complex things that happen in 3 dimensional sound field that is time variant and apply that to an simple electrical signal with absolutely no proof of the claims you effectively make about said electrical signal
A two channel initially mechanical system, i.e. the ear, with a 20khz bandwidth, if you are lucky, can detect microsecond timing differentials ... Just like two microphones with a 20khz bandwidth digitized at 44.1Khz can resolve microsecond time of arrival differences. This is very well understood and done day in and day out with all manner of signals. There is no magic, there is no unknown branch of physics not yet understood, and even if we don’t understand all the neural pathways that does not change the fact that our hearing starts as a mechanical system that has not been shown to extend in bandwidth past 20Khz. Even experiments that indicated potential detection of ultrasonics were not able to show ultimately that it was not subharmonic resonances that were detected.
Your statement about us not having the hardware for electrical fine signal analysis required for human acoustic testing is simply not supportable. That claim is based on misunderstandings and knowledge gaps such as the belief that 44.1Khz (or 192Khz) digitization cannot carry within subsample, microsecond timing information. It can, within the bandwidth of the hearing system. Couple a flawed understanding of digitized and reconstructed analog signals and the information they carry and the potential for a bandwidth limited system to provide detection capability much faster than that bandwidth and you get the statements below which are not based in facts nor supportable with anything passing for evidence.
A two channel initially mechanical system, i.e. the ear, with a 20khz bandwidth, if you are lucky, can detect microsecond timing differentials ... Just like two microphones with a 20khz bandwidth digitized at 44.1Khz can resolve microsecond time of arrival differences. This is very well understood and done day in and day out with all manner of signals. There is no magic, there is no unknown branch of physics not yet understood, and even if we don’t understand all the neural pathways that does not change the fact that our hearing starts as a mechanical system that has not been shown to extend in bandwidth past 20Khz. Even experiments that indicated potential detection of ultrasonics were not able to show ultimately that it was not subharmonic resonances that were detected.
Your statement about us not having the hardware for electrical fine signal analysis required for human acoustic testing is simply not supportable. That claim is based on misunderstandings and knowledge gaps such as the belief that 44.1Khz (or 192Khz) digitization cannot carry within subsample, microsecond timing information. It can, within the bandwidth of the hearing system. Couple a flawed understanding of digitized and reconstructed analog signals and the information they carry and the potential for a bandwidth limited system to provide detection capability much faster than that bandwidth and you get the statements below which are not based in facts nor supportable with anything passing for evidence.
We don’t have any hardware available to us that can come close to that level of auditory or electrical signal fine analysis.