How Science Got Sound Wrong

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...

atdavid"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."

This is a telling and revealing remark from this user who by all appearances, indications, and demonstrations is somewhere "on the spectrum" as it is now fashionable to explain and who relies on scant slivers of knowledge often gleaned from frenetic Google searches to then issue claims, pronouncements, and declarations based soley, exclusively, and singularly on these incomplete understandings of basic, fundamental, elemental mechanisms.

atdavid"That 324 is an erroneous interpretation of if we scanned our eyes over a field of view but out brains do not really work that way."

This claim reflects a simple, basic, fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of the very essential nature of vision but the pronouncement and declaration is consistent with this poster's habit and practice of issuing proclamations intended to be received with an air of authority but which in actual fact and practice are no more than misguided conclusions derived from a few slivers of fact gleaned from Google searches.

I’m afraid things are much worse than audiophiles think they are. Are sensory perceptions are influenced by not only the obvious physical conscious reality around us but also by the subconscious physical reality, that over which we have no control. It is what it is, it’s the way we developed over hundreds of thousands of years, how humans selectively evolved to be able to survive in a world fraught with danger. Danger all around. Danger from above 🦅 danger from below 🐊 danger from all manner of man eating beasts 🐅. His senses of hearing and vision are especially alert 🚨 to any hint of danger. And his adrenaline starts pumping and his legs start moving as soon as he detects a threat. Feets don’t fail me now! 🏃‍♂️

Man has very evolved extremely complex and clever threat detection and threat avoidance systems. You could say the brain is like a transceiver, operating consciously and subconsciously. You can’t just turn them off. You could even go so far as to say it’s akin to Mind-Matter Interaction. Or even ESP. In this modern world with all manner of potential threats colors, some “unnatural” shapes, our personal communications devices 📱 connected to an uncertain and dangerous world 😬 and many other things too numerous to list here can affect our perception of sound.

As fate would have it, humans are in virtually CONSTANT stress because there are so many “triggers” in our local environment. Thus, Mr. Audiophile sitting in the comfort of his Lazy Boy cannot distinguish between the conscious physical reality and the subconscious mental reality. He can’t blame the sound entirely on the integrity of the acoustic waves.