How Science Got Sound Wrong

I suspect we know pretty much everything there is to know about what’s out there in the great behind, I mean great beyond. Time to move on. Get over it. 

Magnetic tape has issues with noise, wow/flutter, induced signal issues from non linear movement over the heads, etc. To vinyl add more noise, poor channel to channel isolation, and inaccuracies with RIAA equalization / de-equalization and even less "information" in or close to the audio band

the human hearing system was designed, from the ground up, over millennia, in the realm of natural selection, to hear through and past noise and wow & flutter. We filter out of our hearing....the rushing of our blood and heartbeat - in every second of being alive. And much much more.

It was designed to do these complex things via it’s temporally sensitive and aligned comb filter ’multi thousand point’ amplitude triggered system. All tied to the most complex and potent bit of computing power known to exist ---the human mind.

Where those powers of cognition vary between individuals, to the tune of 300,000:1 in cognition speed, when we go from 100 to 200 IQ. Where.. what it takes a person with 100IQ a year to cognate, a person with 200 IQ can cognate in 3 minutes. This is a theoretical calculation put forth from a member of the Prometheus society, which requires an IQ of 169 at a minimum, to become a member. There is much to show that this is hewing close to the reality, otherwise the member would not have put forth the musing.

According to the calculation itself, others may take quite some time to catch up to the obviousness of the proposal of this thread... being tied up in, well, emotional reflection of internal issues when presented with the proffered data point.

Intellect is an afterthought and the brain is designed to be transient with respect to intelligence and musing..or.. mostly an ego loop and unconscious. This is by design and by reality.(proven in modern sciences on subjects of intellectual/brain function) (don’t demand the articles, please go look for them, ie not my job to bring detractors up to date)

Hence my nicely rude line about how people wear their consciousness. (where I do not exempt myself, and.. as this post comes into focus for the reader...it is seen as frighteningly close to the truth)

Intelligence was designed from the ground up to rise, use bodily energies, find the first answer.... and then fade until the next time it is called to the forefront. The moment to moment thing you like to think of as your conscious bubble is mostly an ’emotions first as permanent filter’ - ego loop on standby. The brain at full pop requires too much of the body's energies, and like a muscle, was designed to only be in transient operation and use. Elastic. Flexible.. but mostly at rest. (this Machiavellian world seems to take great advantage of these aspects, does it not?)(how does a parasite work, again? Oh yes, by staying out of conscious awareness)

Next comes the idea of hearing, and rumination via hearing.

the idea that It follows the same path in individuals as does basic intelligence. That the variations in hearing capacities (as a complex system) may also follow this range of at least 300,000:1 in fine resolution of brainpower tied to sensitivities.

After all, half the population is at and below the 100IQ median line used in the calculation and that half remains untouched in the numbers used. So the truth is that it is ..likely worse than the ruminations and theory - as realities go.

A good set of hearing/ear qualities may be tied to a very fine mind or some average hearing may be tied to a very fine mind...

...or.. a set of poor ears might be tied to a middling level mind.

Where that middling level mind may insist that it knows everything about digital audio and human hearing... and that others who hear and think differently are wrong.

The question is if the middling mind can hear, can it ruminate, and can it even reach the answer in a reasonable enough level of time to be effective in the conversation, at all.

digital audio has the whole answer and problem set put on --completely backward, or in a way that has nothing to do with how the ear works. Or, in total contrary aspect to how the ear works.

Digital audio makes terrific engineering and mathematical sense, but very poor sense, with regard to how the ear works. This has been covered multiple times in this thread.


Something about time, and cognition, If I recall correctly....

Where those powers of cognition vary between individuals, to the tune of 300,000:1 in cognition speed, when we go from 100 to 200 IQ. Where.. what it takes a person with 100IQ a year to cognate, a person with 200 IQ can cognate in 3 minutes. This is a theoretical calculation put forth from a member of the Prometheus society, which requires an IQ of 169 at a minimum, to become a member. There is much to show that this is hewing close to the reality, otherwise the member would not have put forth the musing.

Actually there is almost 0 evidence to support this. To support this would require actual experiments with the same problem given to people of diverse IQs and the time of "cognition" to be evaluated. Because of the diverse IQs, that would require a test of exceedingly long completion time for those at the bottom. Not to mention, this is not how "IQ" even works. It is a scale of what percentage of people can achieve a score on a theoretical test, then belled with a standard deviation of 15, such that an IQ of 200 is 6.67 standard deviations above 100. While there is proof that people with high IQs neurons fire faster, and proof of higher connection density, hence passing more detailed information, the numbers above (300,000:1) are just fantasy. There have been some rough looks at speed of learning over the years, that show improvements of 10-30% per standard deviation. As well, it is supportable through evidence that a person with an IQ of 170 may solve a problem that a person with an IQ of 100 never will as they don’t have the ability to process the complexity, but that is much different from a measure of "time to understand".
p.s. I would not use a word like "cognate" unless you know what it means.

According to the calculation itself, others may take quite some time to catch up to the obviousness of the proposal of this thread... being tied up in, well, emotional reflection of internal issues when presented with the proffered data point.

And here perhaps we agree, because there appears to be an attempt, based on a lack of understanding of the basic precepts of sampled data systems, to make claims that are factually not supportable. Hence some, like the author, make claims that they feel are obvious, while others, who have an understanding of the underlying science, know, instantly, that those claims are wrong. This has little to do with high IQ though. It is mainly about experience and knowledge. Higher IQ would better allow mapping of knowledge from one area onto another area. i.e. someone with high IQ that understands sampling theory, would understand that examples specific to music would not be required to illustrate timing accuracy of sample systems used for music.

Next comes the idea of hearing, and rumination via hearing.

the idea that It follows the same path in individuals as does basic intelligence. That the variations in hearing capacities (as a complex system) may also follow this range of at least 300,000:1 in fine resolution of brainpower tied to sensitivities.

As discussed above, there is 0 evidence of a 300,000:1 range for cognition speed. Similarly, there is little evidence for any wide range of auditory capability. There is little/no evidence of anyone hearing past 20KHz. In tests of detection of time of arrival discrimination, there was no large difference between subjects, and the largest difference was related frequency range of hearing. One would expect some difference in processing complexity, just like intelligence, but that does not magically change fundamental limits such as range of frequencies heard and/or dynamic range, and it appears time of arrival discrimination. Most likely would be the ability to interpret more complexity, but not fundamentals. Smart people may be able to find something in an image faster, but they do not see the image in fundamentally more detail

digital audio has the whole answer and problem set put on --completely backward, or in a way that has nothing to do with how the ear works. Or, in total contrary aspect to how the ear works.

Digital audio makes terrific engineering and mathematical sense, but very poor sense, with regard to how the ear works. This has been covered multiple times in this thread.

This goes back to the point about "obviousness". There is no evidence of people with fundamentally superhuman hearing capability whether in dynamic range, time of arrival processing or frequency range. While they may be able to extract more information out of audio, that does not change how much information was there in the first place, which these statements are attempting to imply without providing any evidence that is the case. A better fundamental knowledge of sampled data systems would probably prevent making these inaccurate conclusions.

the human hearing system was designed, from the ground up, over millennia, in the realm of natural selection, to hear through and past noise and wow & flutter. It was designed to do these complex things via it’s temporally sensitive and aligned comb filter ’multi thousand point’ amplitude triggered system. All tied to the most complex and potent bit of computing power known to exist ---the human mind.

And yes noise can impact our hearing perception both negative and positive. There is more than just simple amplitude triggering predator/prey hearing. Communication and language processing has resulted in significant processing capabilities w.r.t. tone and pace where "wow and flutter" can have meaning, hence we detect this unnatural artifact.

Hence my nicely rude line about how people wear their consciousness. (where I do not exempt myself, and.. as this post comes into focus for the reader...it is seen as frighteningly close to the truth)

Rude? perhaps. A straw-man and call to authority more obviously. It seems most definite that did nothing to move the argument forward.

Something about time, and cognition, If I recall correctly....

No, something about trying to take the complex interpretation of sound that occurs in humans and equate that, without evidence, to a level of "information lost" in an electrical signal, to make a claim about digital systems (or even electrical signals), that cannot be supported by any accepted methods of measurement.

the human hearing system was designed, from the ground up, over millennia...

Something is wrong with this sentence.