How Science Got Sound Wrong

It is fine to say that I am wrong, it is another to prove that I am, or even show some logic to justify that I am.


The initial aspects of the auditory system is a mechanical system. Heck, the transfer of sound is a mechanical system. But even if not, all systems are bandwidth limited at some point, it is just that mechanical systems are often bandwidth limited at lower frequencies.


Neurons firing in a microsecond does absolutely nothing to prove that the bandwidth limit of the auditory system is not 10's of KHz. Similarly, being able to time arrival based on phase difference between two points (our ears) in space to microsecond timing does nothing to prove that the bandwidth limit of the auditory system is not 10's of KHz.

teo_audio1,247 posts11-22-2019 11:02am

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 ......

careful with those double standards... and your penchant for putting words in others mouths that they have not said.... and then using those false premise to attack their view or position.

Are you seriously suggesting that we cannot measure electrical signals, to very high bandwidths, and with exceptional resolution?  That is definitely what you appear to be saying?  Is that what you are saying?

I really don't need to say much more than that. You can call my statement ridiculous, but you just claimed that our ability to measure electrical signals, to very high bandwidths and with high resolution does not exist. How I am supposed to take that seriously.  I guess all those amazing scientific instruments we have really don't work at all?

Maybe you were just so quick to call me wrong that you misinterpreted what I said?   I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

taras22303 posts11-22-2019 11:30am

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 the Brits would say, brilliant, just brilliant, its absolute comedy gold....in fact that has to be one of the funniest things I have read in quite a while. I can only thank the powers that be I wasn’t drinking coffee at the time because I surely would have lost a laptop....or I didn’t faint and fall and crack my skull ’cause I was laughing so hard I got very very light headed.

And delivered with such certitude / straight face delivery...to paraphrase the great and grand Zaphod, brilliantly brilliant.

Feel free to show me how I misinterpreted what you wrote:

teo_audio1,249 posts11-22-2019 11:02am

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 ......

I feel you are not being honest with me or yourself by accusing me of a double standard. I have done nothing but address the actual technical content of the original article, and the posts made against what I said, that as opposed to actually addressing what I wrote, essentially only attack me.

As opposed to attacking me, perhaps you could address what I have actually wrote and show me and everyone else how I am clearly wrong. I  have posted data simulations and links to several papers (written by people that understand the topic) that clearly show that a digitized system can carry within it relative timing information that is well beyond the sample rate. The whole premise of the article is that the timing is limited to the sample rate. That is false. That makes the whole premise of the article also false.


teo_audio1,249 posts11-22-2019 11:55amcareful with those double standards... and your penchant for putting words in others mouths that they have not said.... and then using those false premise to attack their view or position.