How Science Got Sound Wrong

So are we hearing distortions in the electronics? Digital filters not removing all distortions and disrupting electronics downstream. There is something going on that people hear. 

@ atdavid

So when I finally had some time ( it’s been a very busy week ) went off and did some sleuthing and reading. Anyways, to cut to the chase....found the following.....

It proves you can infer some time details beyond the sample rate, but this is practicaly a kind of limited exception to the rule implied by the sampling rate -not an escape from accuracy limitations.

It was shown that the phase of a sinusoidal pattern which is assumed as perfect and constant can be resolved to a fraction of the sampling interval.

This subsample accuracy was possible because the pattern recorded is not a discrete event, it’s impression is recorded throughout many consecutive samples and its exact formation is inferable (idealy).

For all discrete or unassumable events, PCM records can only specify time of occurence to within a whole length of the sampling interval. Time resolution can only be improved when a known pattern can be observed throughout multiple samples -which is the case for computing the phase of synthetic frequency components, but not at all when trying to refine the temporal location of unassumed events.

This seems to say that timing beyond the sampling rate is a rather special case that works in situations that have a long term term steady state input, and doesn’t apply to " discrete or unassumable "events. And correct me if I’m wrong but music is most likely something very akin to a discrete or unassumable events, eh.

That proved kinda interesting and sorta relevant so I decided to look at the articles you posted to back-fill your position, and not just go, ooooh, that right there is real honest sound and robust science, and just run away cause people like us are afraid of the dark and real science.

So looked thru those articles and sure enough timing beyond the sample rate is indeed possible.....in gas pipelines, which I assume are fairly steady state noise sources.....and not as one articles clearly states....

Notuseful for real-time applications. The whole signal needs to be known in advance.

Where the real-time applications kinda sorta sounds an awful lot like music....and the whole signal implies long term steady state.

So colour me confused....but it seems the articles you posted may be sound and robust science but the bottom line they don’t really support your contentions....if fact in one case quite the opposite and in the other case concerned with something not at all like music and from a strictly sound and robust science perceptive has very limited relevance .

That being said would be happy to learn more about this so please post other references, though if I were you I may want to actually read the article before posting, you know, just to make sure it says what you hope it does. 

You are confused because you do not understand the science, hence you put it down.

One of the papers Again clearly show orders of magnitude subsample timing at 30db SNR. Never will a digital audio system ever get anywhere near having as little as 30 db SNR, and if you say when the signal level is low, well then in your analog system it is all noise at this point. That paper looks at low SNR situations because the noise can be really bad, Unlike audio! Absolutely nothing I posted says the opposite of what I said and that you would state that suggests you really didn’t try to understand them. One only discusses difficulty in the presence of noise and other sources .... With examples where the SNR is 10dbs of db, not 90+, and they did not bandwidth limit the signal.

You post excerpts, not links to articles, why is that? The parts you link to show a lack of understanding and the same flawed thought process as the author. Audio Is Not a Real Time System. It is a recorded and played back system. There is 0 concept of real time in Audio. There is 0 concept of absolute time. Everything is audio as we are discussing is relative. That is why I clearly and distinctly use the term relative timing in most of my posts. That is the difference between actually understanding a topic and cutting and pasting things that match your world view.

Stop clutching at straws to attempt to justify a point of view that is wrong. I read the article. I understand it. That is why I know it is flawed. You want it to be true, but wanting something true and it being true are not the same.

Everyone who understands signal processing and digitized systems will instantly pick out the flaw in the premise of the article which is exactly what others online have done wrt this article, to the point of contacting editors because it is such a gross misrepresentation of reality.

Methinks either you are not seeing things clearly because some of that egg on your face got into your eyes.

Or you are like the lawyer reduced to pounding the table because his first two more defensible options have gone poof.

So here is what people in the sound and robust sciences do when confronted with a difference of opinion....they find articles that specifically support their contentions. You mentioned there were thousands of them so it should be quite easy to find several that would conclusively prove your case .

And we will have a win/win conclusion to this...I will have learned something valuable and your position will be validated.

You post excerpts, not links to articles, why is that? The parts you link to show a lack of understanding and the same flawed thought process as
the author.

If you had actually taken the time to read what I had said you would know I was referring to articles you had posted earlier and that supported the contention made in the opening quote.