How Science Got Sound Wrong

The laws of statistics and probability dictate that even a monkey sitting down at a typewriter, assuming you could make them sit for that period of time, will eventually type something that’s true. But what, dear readers, does it really mean to make a true statement? People on both sides of any issue, especially digital vs analog, are quite capable of making true statements and often do. The issue is not (rpt not) black and white. 🦓

Note: even an expert in a specialized area cannot claim victory in an argument automatically simply by referencing his credentials. That is a, you know, Appeal to Authority.

Many people prefer vinyl (even though much of the time the source material was digital). Many people prefer all digital chains. It is a good thought exercise to try to determine if anything is wrong with digital, if you stick to things that are factual. It is an equally good thought exercise to determine what is "wrong" with vinyl and what makes that sound attractive to many.

In point of fact I didn’t say vinyl ( which admittedly has issues ) I specifically said analog and thru several decades of work experience have heard analog recordings of events and their digital equivalent. And frankly those digital equivalents while awfully good ( and getting better over time ) were/are still not up to the level of high level analog.

And absolutely yes I would love to understand why that is the situation. I mean digital has incredible potential, it is convenient, easy to manipulate and store, can be played back in very small portable formats, but on the big score, music playback, not so much.

And I think don’t throwing more math at it will solve the problem because the problem is tied up in a mechanism, the human, that is at best understood by weak grid science ( science mostly defined by sufficient conditions and not the necessary ones that strong grid science usually operates in ) In such a situation the factual bits are fuzzy but it may be a good idea to maybe look at that end of things to get a better idea of how to optimize the digital math. Cause if the author is even slightly right it seems the situation right now is akin to a digital square peg being hammered over and over again into a sinusoidal hole. And yeah the math may be perfect but remember the map is not the territory.

And yes the article is far from perfect but does at the very least throw the analog vs digital debate into a new light. I read it and see a possible avenue for further exploration. It does not, in my most unbelievably humble opinion, deserve the whole-sale dismissal you have painted it with.

And I could bring forth many musicians who would tell you that digital recordings are more truthful to the sounds they are creating, even though "analog", with its limitations may have lovely euphonics. Who is right, them or you?

I could also bring forth many audiophiles who also prefer digital to analog, whether vinyl or tape or otherwise. Are you more right than they are?

And yes, throwing math is appropriate. Humans perceive sound, they don’t perceive electrical signals in a wire, or bits on a disk. You can call the science of human perception weak, but the science of what happens w.r.t. the storage and reconstruction of information, namely what is captured by that microphone and played back through the electronics, up to the speaker, that science is exceptionally strong, bounded by very robust science and math.  As per your statement below, models change .... math does not. The math behind sampling, reconstruction, does not change because you add a human observer to the equation.  Intentional alterations of a signal may change to suit preferences, but the math does not change.

In such a situation the factual bits are fuzzy but it may be a good idea to maybe look at that end of things to get a better idea of how to optimize the digital math.

The article throws no new light on the argument at all. We have known for some time that we can detect time of arrival differences in the ears to the microsecond level, and that neuron fire rates are fast. Literally no one is questioning. The whole premise of the article is that "timing" is limited to the sample rate of a digitized system .... a premise 100% false within the confines of a bandwidth limited system and no one has ever shown that our ears/auditory system is anything but a bandwidth limited system, and this article did absolutely nothing to disprove that it is not bandwidth limited.

"The issue is not (rpt not) black and white."

No white holes?

a premise 100% false within the confines of a bandwidth limited system and no one has ever shown that our ears/auditory system is anything but a bandwidth limited system, and this article did absolutely nothing to disprove that it is not bandwidth limited.

Say what?

Your reading comprehension is way way off....which indicates a multitude of other ......