How Science Got Sound Wrong

In a word atdavid,

2-3 microseconds of real brain-body continuous time is not the same as the hypothetical 2-3 microseconds of sampling times in audio technology simulation, except if you reduce the synchronization of all the body-brain maps to one and only one simulation map, this time map implicated in the sampling process simulation of audio Technology...


Even if Softky is wrong about the point you indicated, and that the extraction of information at the scale of 2-3 microsecond time is possible , in the sampling theoretical condition of audio technology; the main point of Softky about sound processing implicate first the real neurological microtime maps information of the body-brain sensors irreducible to digital audio tech. then to one digital time map...


Perhaps I am wong and all perception is reducible to Fourier analysis in an audio channel ...I dont think so, Softky neither it seems about the neurological basis of hearing perception...


My "one word" is finally many words... :)

I think my lecture of the Softky article posted here is confirmed by the informations contained in this other one :

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.08916.pdf

We should also consider the difference between "perceived resolution" vs. "processed resolution".  For example, when we told someone we "heard things", it's our brain told us that we "heard things", but it's possible that the brain processed a lot more information but only let the "conscious mind" what the brain thinks of what is necessary.  I supposed that's what psychology categorize that as "conscious" vs. "subconscious".

There are human beings that are capable of extraordinary ability such as performing mathematical operations that only a computer could.  That means that our brain is capable of things that at least our conscious mind is not aware of.  But I am glad I don't have that ability since it would drive me crazy and of course why because I have a computer do that for me.

I've said it before that our body is like a machine.  In order to process information, or specifically to be able to localize sound, if anything for the sake of survival, the brain needs to perform "mathematics".  Just like some underwater mammals, they can possess "sonar" capability like a man-made submarines, and their brains are made up of the same stuffs as our brains.  But I am glad I don't have any "sonar" capabilities since I just want to chill out at the beach and enjoy looking at the hot chics.  Lols, that's actually a four sentence paragraph.   

mahgister,

The timing resolution, within the bandwidth limited system, is orders of magnitude better than the sampling rate at even fairly low SNR. Within a bandwidth limited system, which the "mechanical" auditory system starts as, continuous time can be represented, effectively perfect, by sampled data points. It really is the same under those limits of bandwidth and there is absolutely nothing to indicate our acoustic perception is not bandwidth limited.

There have been experiments done on temporal resolution w.r.t. bandwidth of the signal. At some point, increasing bandwidth stops increasing temporal resolution, and that stop point is within the limits of the audio bandwidth as commonly discussed.

Unfortunately, the author seemed to be writing from a position of "feelings" as opposed to well researched science. There is research, math, even well accepted scientific knowledge that directly refutes his position.

Atdavid
you persist to reduce, to a simple translation in a simulation model, the hearing processings in the body-brain sensors (including more than just the 2 ears sensor) a process more complex, that implicate more synchronized continuous mappings than in one Shannon simulation channel... Then how can i say my point that is invisible to your fixation ?

The successive operation of compression and decompression of a natural object,be it a sound or a nude woman, is possible with a great degree of accuracy, nobody discuss that,neither Softky nor me, but there is a price to pay? Guess what is the price? This is the central point around the Softky argument, and the precise amount of information available via Fourier analysis in a Shannon channel, be it the information amount you point at, or the different amount of information Softky point at, whatever amount of information   there is available will not change the central fact pointed by Softky ’s article , that is to say, the price to pay...


Here is some bits of info that will gives you the beginnings of the answer:


«But variability in the digital world has a very different structure from the “noise” known to science. In one sense, digital variability is lower,having been specifically enriched to appear to our sensory systems as coherent 3D images or sounds rather than as random snow or hiss. In that sense, moment-to-moment digital inputs are designed to seem low noise and clean. But digital sources are hyperdimensional patterns, which (unlike real things) can change discontinuously, thereby violating the continuous natural laws a nervous system expects. The unnatural structure of digital variability can make it appear far more trustworthy and predictable than it actually is.» William Softky