Engineering does not make the claim that the tiny number is swamped by the large number in audio.
Psychoacoustics makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Neuroscience makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Neurophysics makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Engineering uses the work of those fields, and their research to define the parameters for the products, methods, and concepts that they develop. If you have an issue, it is with the above fields, not engineering.
You may grand statements about "this is not the way the ear works", but perhaps you can back that up with some research from psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and/or neurophysics and show how "engineering" is not properly using these principles as it relates to audio?
Psychoacoustics makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Neuroscience makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Neurophysics makes that claim and backs it up with research.
Engineering uses the work of those fields, and their research to define the parameters for the products, methods, and concepts that they develop. If you have an issue, it is with the above fields, not engineering.
You may grand statements about "this is not the way the ear works", but perhaps you can back that up with some research from psychoacoustics, neuroscience, and/or neurophysics and show how "engineering" is not properly using these principles as it relates to audio?
teo_audio1,243 posts11-19-2019 11:04am
Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number.
This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct.
That is the mistake.