How Science Got Sound Wrong

I stumble on to a description of the author of this article unknown to me on the net,
and this author seems to me not a complete moron...I am happy that this description confirm my lecture impression...

«William Softky is a biophysicist who was among the first neuroscientists to understand microtiming, and among the first technologists to build that understanding into algorithms. Thousands have cited his scientific work, his PhD in Theoretical Physics is from Caltech, his name is on 10 patents and two of the companies he inspired were acquired for $160 million total.»

Perhaps after all it is necessary to read his article a second time before discrediting him about a minor point compared to his main thesis....

For me learning to read is precisely that, reading 2 times, the first time the tree always mask the forest, the second time we are ready to see the forest forgetting some obfuscating tree...


Reading is even more painful to begin with and at the end than most people think ….  :)

Can't agree with you Mahgister. Whole premise of the article was that digitized systems only have timing accuracy to a sampling rate level and hence miss micro-timing. That is a 100% false premise. Digitized systems with high SNR have very high timing resolution as long as the system is bandwidth limited which digital audio is ... And so is our auditory system.  As was pointed out above, neurons don't simply fire on/off either.

I am afraid that the tree you see is the only point you want to see...
Like someone who is stuck on the point he want to understand or can understand not any other...

I already said that even if you are right, it is only a point among other important points in the main thesis of this author who argue that the processing of sound is not only about microtiming in digital technology only but linked to the dynamical body brain harmonization of the complex muti sensors in a living event... In his words:« Consuming separate, inconsistent sensory streams that create competing maps of space violates a brain’s design.» That illustrate the main point of his thesis that concern not only digital engineering mathematics but also the body dynamical rhythmic sensors processing...In a word when he speaks about sound he does not speaks about the ears " per se" but about the whole synchronization of ALL the body sensors in a lived situation and not only the brain’s neurons but the entire neuronal matrix in the gesturing body...By the way i am sure that he knows that neurons are not only firing on/ off...

I will not argue further with you i am not competent to argue about microtiming and perception i only pretend that i know how to read that’s all and taking only some point in an article and not all the others is not my method of analytic reading ...My rant was only a reaction to the bashing of the entire article around a tech point that is only that, a point, in a way more complex thesis...My best to you...

No Mahgister you are trying to see things in this article that frankly are not there. I cannot support that point of view.


The whole basis of the claim of the article is a misrepresentation of the timing aspects of digital audio.  This is caused by the author not understanding digitized systems.



Don't try to read more into this article than there is. There are many complexities of sound interpretation but those are a factor of the sounds that reach the ear and the complexities of speakers and room environments, not the electrical signal.

With all my respect to you, and you are way more competent than me on subject linked to audio, the "timing aspect of digital audio" is only a part of the thesis of the author about the perception of sound by the sensitive dynamical body, the main point is the necessity for the brain-body to synchronize and harmonize all the dynamical aspects of the sensors that perceive and interpret the sound phenomenon, this is " the timing aspect" not only about digital audio but mainly about the different maps in the brain-body....

This micro-timing aspect of the brain-body maps is not reducible to the micro timing of digital audio, and because it is not reducible to that, the author object about some negative limitations in audio reproduction... And if i understand you, you object about the limitation of the author in the alleged erroneous way he states his thesis in the realm of digital audio processing...And even if i give to you that, if you are right about that, and i have no reason to think otherwise, the main thesis of the author is about microtiming aspect of the brain body maps not only micro-timing in digital audio "per se"....Then your criticism, even rightful, does not nullify the whole problem that is behind the author reflexion… It is all my point...

I dont attack your critic at all, i am not competent for that, i only say that the main thesis of the writer exceed the point in discussion by you and the main thesis is not reducible to this point of yours and your argument about his understanding of digital processing does not nullify his interesting reflexion, at best it ask for more precision and explanation... ….In some last words of the author:

« It turns out the so-called “emotional resonance” people enjoy together really is a kind of neuromechanical resonance, aided by acoustics and reduced by reproduction. »

Sound perception in human is always a living event, never a simulation...

There is not a little hearing audiophile in my brain, and a second little hearing audiophile in the first little brain audiophile, and a third hearing audiophile in the second brain little audiophile etc to the infinities with all their filters...Micro-timing is first microtiming of the brain-body sensors in the living experience, not micro-timing of digital signals in a simulation first and last...


By the way i am not at all in the position of specialized competence and authority in these matters that will makes me able to read more in this article than there is. (thanks to you if you think that i can) ... I only state what the reading process gives to me : understanding which is there plainly to see...A tree is not the forest....This simply states my defense of this interesting writer and scientist...

My best to you...