Re: Hard proof !!!!

On Sep 16, 4:09 am, Guido <NOguyhillS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Raving wrote:

<snip>

When hearing straight ahead we can detect phase differences in arrival
time between the two ears of just 13 microseconds Inverting 1e3
microsecond gives 77 kHz !!! more than 3 times beyond the audible
limit of frequency detection.

Here you are talking about microseconds...

<snip>

[quoting the 13 microsecond result ....]

...Psychoacoustical experiments show that human listeners can localize
a 500 Hz sine tone with considerable accuracy. Near the forward
direction (q near zero), listeners are sensitive to differences Dq as
small as 1-2°. The idea that this sensitivity is obtained from an ITD
initially seems rather outrageous. A 1° difference in azimuth
corresponds to an ITD of only 13 ms.

Here the articles mentions milliseconds... Seems to me you're off by a
factor of 1000.
"..A 1° difference in azimuth corresponds to an ITD of only 13 *micro*
seconds ..."

'Mu' is converted to 'm' in the text copying. See
http://www.aip.org/pt/nov99/locsound.html

Thus the 44 KHz standard samples the sound precisely at aligned 22.7
microsecond intervals even though the mind detects ear to ear delay
differences of as little as 13 microseconds when the sound is being
emitted from directly in front of the person.

One has to wonder why the scientists and engineers who have been
working in this field for decades made such a hideous mistake? ...
and continue to fail to notice the significance of this error.

Here is what I suspect has happened ...

Other mechanisms of audio recording and playback have very large
errors in distortion. Records and tape has considerable distortion ...

"... Professional tape machines can achieve a weighted flutter figure
of 0.03%, which is considered inaudible, but for the fact that without
weighting it would be an actual 0.3%.

- The best cassette decks struggle to manage around 0.08% weighted,
which is still audible under some conditions. As an example, the
Tascam 202MkIII Auto Reverse Cassette Deck reaches this 0.08% level.
[1]

- Average cassette decks and car players often have around 0.2% or
more flutter.

- Digital music players such as CD, DAT or MP3 use electonic clocks to
deliver samples at precisely the correct speed, and do not suffer from
wow or flutter. ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_and_flutter_measurement

Given these figures of distortion relative to the lack of distortion
afforded by digital technology, the digital technology would win hands
down.

Look again at what "r norman" has stated up thread:
None of this demonstrates that the brain functions using holographic
information processing. It does demonstrate that the brain is capable
of detecting subtle changes in a stimulus to help localize the source
of the sound. It also demonstrates that experimenters crafting
experiments and interpreting the mechanisms involve must understand
the physics of sound, including the notion of sound spectra and
spectral filtering. That the auditory system is organized to do a
frequency analysis on high frequency sounds (above several kHz) and to
do a temporal analysis on sudden transients has been known for a long
time. Even Helmholtz thought as much. That still is not "holographic
data processing".

Specifically ...
"That the auditory system is organized to do a frequency analysis on
high frequency sounds (above several kHz) and to do a temporal
analysis on sudden transients has been known for a long time. "

It seems to me as if there is more to it than that.

Speaking subjectively, I am struck by how real and pleasant,
phonograph records sound compared to their digital replacements. A
creditable scientist who took the time to investigate would be very
hard pressed to dismiss this phenomenon as predominantly "wishful
thinking".

Thus, the anomaly is dismissed away as being caused by the coloration
of even harmonic distortion that tube amplification produces. ....
No.

Here is another explanation as to the reason that records sound much
better than the ought to do so ... And why digital recorded material
is much more stressful and unnatural than it ought to be.

Ask yourself, "Where is the information content is the sound that we
hear?"

Some things to consider before answering ...

- Being a man, I find that certain women's voices can sound incredibly
sexy. I go weak & wobbly in the knees from the voice of a select few
women.

- Stradivarius violins and other musical instruments have legendary
renown. Purely wishful thinking? Not so likely.

- The screeching sound of metal on metal ... chalk on a black
board ...

- Getting one's ears plugged with water and ear wax, a blowing wind, a
humid day, a leafy forest, a location with many hard reflective
surfaces and echoes.


The primary sound is very easily distorted .. wind, humidity, ear
wax, reflecting surfaces ...

Although we only hear up to say ~ 20 kHz or a peak-to-peak time of 50
microseconds, we can easily hear differences in arrival times of less
than 13 microseconds.

How about the possibility that humans do not hear much beyond 20 kHz
because there is no need to do so. The worthwhile information content
in the sound that we hear is not predominantly encoded within the
fundamental signal. That fundamental signal is too noisy, being
influenced by wind, humidity, reflections and junk in the ear canal.

The 13 microsecond acuity of sensing ability is supposed to be in
regard to "sudden transients".

Methinks that this is a good example of where ToE leads scientists
astray by scientific correctness.

Clicks ... "sudden transients" ... locating of some tiger leaping out
of the jungle, I suppose ????

Locating some stalking jaguar that breaks a twig, huh?

Sort of like 'hunters and gatherers', maybe? <S***> /sarcasm
extreme/

How about this explanation:

What a person keys into when they hear something has more to do with
the spectral and harmonic structure of the signal than the primary
amplitude and frequency. Information that has been 'coded' by harmonic
overtones and interference from 1st, 2nd and 3rd reflecting
surfaces ... *SOMEHOW* ... is less susceptible to the vagaries of
wind, humidity, fixed reflecting surfaces and junk in one's ear.

Extracting the useful information from that encoded mess *might*
strongly rely on 13 microsecond differences in arrival time from ear
to ear?

Raving is getting rather tired of being useless and worthless, so he
will get to the punch line.

Digital audio is good at accurately recording aural information. With
the discrete 44 kHz sampling scheme, it butchers one aspect of the
signal MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE ... Ironically , the one aspect of the
aural information which matters more than anything else !!!!!

THAT BEING the fidelity of the primary signal relative to the harmonic
overtones and reflections.

Records are truly 'crap' as a recording media. The primary signal is
the crappiest .. all sorts of distortion is introduced. .. Yet the
harmonic signal and the various reflected signals is LESS distorted
relative to the distortion of the primary signal.

We seem to extract the secondary encoded information from that which
we listen to whilst rating it's accuracy based upon the fidelity of
the primary signal.

Records: Primary signal DISTORTED - Secondary structure ENHANCED
relative to the primary distortion.

Digital Audio: Primary signal LEAST distorted - Secondary structure
GREATLY DISTORTED relative to the primary signal.

It's all about the SECONDARY relative to the PRIMARY.... That is how
we gain our information from listening. .. That is what Digital Audio
does the WORST.

The scientists and engineers had an attack of 'Scientific correctness'
and assumed that it was the primary amplitude and frequency that is
essentially important.

Cordially,

Raving


.