Golden Earring wrote: > I thought that there was an implication that human hearing might have > more discriminatory ability than previously suspected.
Yes, that is a possibility. But my point is that there is nothing really mysterious (or anything that breaks current scientific understanding) about it. > Ears have a very curious design & the human brain is simply the most > complex object yet discovered. So I think it's reasonable to suggest > that psychoacoustics is not as well understood as (say) Nyquist-Shannon > sampling theory... Absolutely. The problem is that audiophiles have used that paper to argue that Nyquist-Shannon doesn't apply - but they are also the ones arguing that a sampled signal supposedly can't represent time differences smaller than one sample interval... "To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Julf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=42050 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106519 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
