How Science Got Sound Wrong
atdavid"Nothing in my reasoning was exposed, no ignorance shown, or misunderstandings sufficiently wide for even your limited understanding to squeeze through." I know that you have badly hurt feelings and I will try to be more caring and gentle with you in the future I can tell that you are a very sensitive timid individual but some of you're assertions are so extremely mistaken and erroneous that it is difficult to sound neutral when correcting them. |
| Post removed |
atdavid"Nope, no hurt feelings at all." It is good to portray a brave front when your feelings have been so badly hurt but it would be a good idea for you to talk them over with someone you trust such as your mom or teacher you will feel better I promise you! |
| Post removed |
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... :) |
