Scientist vs. Audiophile

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: oliverstoned wrote: It reminds me of a "scientific" theory from Mike saying that tape wasn't good cause there are less magnetic particles than ear cells Could you remind us (in detail) of that, Mike? I wonder what else I said according to your memory. Delete as quick as possible what you have written about that, before i find it again!

I'm never ashamed to say thatI was wrong on something, and I certainly would not say that everything that I'm saying is true 100% ... but of course I try to only say things that are objectively true.

But I'm too lazy to dig out that post ... show it to me, and I'll comment!

Just to sum it up:

So by watching a spectrum analysis on a record played from a vinyl source and a analysis from a cd source the signal generated from the vinyl is THEORETICALLY better.

So then it is up to the BRAIN to interpet these signals and then it will deceide if it is pleasing or not. Some people can't even hear a difference between vinyl and CD!

And please remember even what you DON'T hear can make a difference on what you DO hear!

Thats the last thing i say in this debate...i don't think we are goin to settle this thing anytime soon

Yes the ear is digital in the sense that forexample a signal of 100hz will always resonate at then release the same amplitude but lets not forget that it is what the BRAIN interpets these electric signals as that makes what we hear! And that interpetation is fairly complex and can sound different from person to person albeit their ears is exactly the same

Lindsay Lohan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not... Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals. Yes i have actually studied some human anatomy and if my memory serves me right there is a part of the ear called the cochlea which is filled with fluid and 20 000 small nerve cells of different lenght. These Nerve cells will react when the particular frequency is passed over to them so when the compressional wave matches the frequency of the nerve cell the nerve cell will resonate and release an electrical impulse to the brain.

Very good! It is also worth pointing out that these electric impulses are digital. Each impulse has exactly the same shape and amplitude ... only the frequency of the impulses is used to carry information.

Lindsay Lohan wrote: However the brain does also calculate the QUALITY of the sound and thus exactly the same frequencys can sound different when interpeted by the brain. So not exactly digital but ofcourse what i really meant to say was that if digital should have sounded good all the parts in it should have been digital because the sound is first analog and then converted to digital and then INTERPETED by the brain.

Even worse: Most of the time the sound is converted from audio to analog electrical by a microphone ... then sampled to digital multitrack hd recording. Then it is copied and manipulated by effects digitally a couple of times, including the mixdown to two tracks. From this source (usually 24bit/192khz) the source is then downsampled to CD audio (16bit/44.1khz). Then when you put it in your player, the signal is converted from digital to analog electric, and then to acoustic energy which is again sampled by the cells of the human ear and converted to electric impulses.

Isn't it amazing that after all that we can hear no actual difference to the original source? I mean, audiophile metaphysics aside, a trumpet on a CD still sounds like a trumpet ...

Of course the key to all this is that during all those steps the resolution of the process signal is way beyond the resolution of the ear. So although with each step errors are introduced, in the end we hear no difference because the errors are beyond our perceptional threshold.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: the point is that if digital should sound good then the human ear itself should be digital which it is not... Sorry to break it to you, but it is. Buy yourself a good book about human anatomy - or better, about the inner ear in particular. I studied it at the university in great detail, especially how sound is transformed into electric signals.

Yes i have actually studied some human anatomy and if my memory serves me right there is a part of the ear called the cochlea which is filled with fluid and 20 000 small nerve cells of different lenght. These Nerve cells will react when the particular frequency is passed over to them so when the compressional wave matches the frequency of the nerve cell the nerve cell will resonate and release an electrical impulse to the brain.

However the brain does also calculate the QUALITY of the sound and thus exactly the same frequencys can sound different when interpeted by the brain. So not exactly digital but ofcourse what i really meant to say was that if digital should have sounded good all the parts in it should have been digital because the sound is first analog and then converted to digital and then INTERPETED by the brain.