How Science Got Sound Wrong

ruraltraumasurgeon
These arguments are mostly specious, as was the original article that was referenced. Most neurons exhibit graded spikes - few exhibit fixed amplitude. An optimal example is three-dimensional auditory space in the mesencephalon which contains "incidence detector neurons." Also - human listeners compensate for a range of auditory incongruities - we are not digital as has been suggested. The medial orbitofrontal cortex is the site in the human brain where the highest level of auditory processing occurs, including compensation.

>>>>>>Is there any compensation for translating that paragraph?

For you, two bits!  I thought it was pretty self explanatory though.

>>>>>>Is there any compensation for translating that paragraph?

But that is only because you know everything and no one else understands.

It is a burden.

atdavid

You can spend all the money and the world and ... the channel separation will still suck as it is inherent in the implementation, you will never have de-equalization perfect since you don’t know the exact equalization curve, you can’t fix wow/flutter that occurred at cutting, and your dynamic range and signal to noise will still be comparatively low ....You can paint a pig all you want, but it is still a pig.

It’s clear where you’re coming from - you’re a measurmentalist. You are so absorbed and infatuated with numbers and graphs that should you listen to even an extraordinarily outstanding turntable system, your profound confirmation bias would prevent you from enjoying the sound. For you, LP will always be a pig.

That’s a fine preference to have, by the way, and you have a lot of good company! But I’m glad that I can enjoy music from a variety of sources.

Your anti-LP argument is filled with illogic, btw, but no matter. A preference is just that - it doesn’t require any elaborate explanation to justify it.