One of our problems is that the ear/brain is a fantastic decoding engine, and we can pull intelligence out of a signal that is of only 4 bit depth. This was found to be the reality when digitization of telephony was being considered. that the experiments in bit depth reduction had us humans being able to make words out well enough, to understand the words, with only 4 bits of depth.
Of course, nuance went by the wayside in that experiment; words were decodable but who and what nuance and inflection ....was not going to be possible.
Our problem is that we are oriented toward decoding complex signals in order to ascertain the intelligence in them.
That we have, in our minds, for the purposes of decoding human language, a set or library of beginning sounds for words. That when we hear the start of words, we bring out a list of the correct starts and then move into curve fitting to the origin and beginning aspects of the given sound. as the sound completes and the word is formed we then lay it down solidly in context and move to the next word.
That we only use the leading edge of transients and the micro transients, in different frequency bands..within the scope of this internal 'flowing word formation trick.'
And that we do the same for music.
That we have cilia in the ear that can decode the singular 20khz notes or single frequencies.
when it comes to complex harmonic structures, that multiple, multiple cilia are involved, with micro timing differentials between them. That these cilia are anchored in a 3d matrix or odd shaped 'sack like' ball in the ear. That this sack is motionally activated in 3 different axis with wave flow in the structure and the surface, much like multiple vibrations originating on the surface of an within the fluid in a water balloon.
Imagine all those cilia or hairs inserted in this 'fluid sack' in 3d or an XYZ pattern. And that the motion of the ball in the xyz form, is going to be uneven and all kinds of resonance and flow patterns will emerge/occur in the flow/vibration....and the cilia will be activated via these complex and evolving motional patterns ...to send signals to the aural nerve complexes and to the brain.... to decode and blend them at micro speed differentials that are FAR beyond and WELL above a lousy little 20khz. Thus each ear has a 3d xyz complex of decoding, with micro differentials in timing and level, for large numbers of cilia, at the same time. (we use the leading edge positive transient values, for the most part, and internally reconstruct/guesstimate from that)
Not just some singular and poorly conceived and executed comparison that is used in the world of audio engineering. The ear, as a complex system...is so far from that simplistic audio engineering and linear weighting idea... that it is almost staggering, when one understands how far apart and opposite the directions are.
The ear/brain....simplifies the data rates by concentrating, for the larger part, on ONLY the leading edge transient values and timing differentials for all the cilia and we reconstruct the overall shape in the mind, or decoding engine. It cuts the data rates, in liner weighted terms, by about 90%. The ear only utilizes micro differentials in multiple frequencies and in the context of this fluid sack's vibrational xyz patterns, over time.
thus, if DSD or digital amplifiers , as designed by engineers, with their simplistic weighting, get all the micro detail wrong ...as they consider it to be the least important part..well..
they've got it exactly backward.
that the
ear brain complex is interested in ONLY the most micro-change components in relation to one another. That it does not use the rest and that it also, due to it's reconstruction techniques and decoding techniques, it can and does insert 'masking' via the act of 'fill in' (like the hearing of words), based on previous experience (internal library of curve fit sounds).
The open minded audiophile is looking for (and literally hearing) sound they've never heard before, like when learning a new language. This is the part of the mind that is used by the constantly evolving audiophile, who has learned how to attach this particular learning method we all have, they have learned to attach it to their audio listening, and to their enjoyment of audio. that they try to learn a new language, or hear given sounds for the first time, like that of a child learning to hear. whereas the audio naysayers, use their already existing set of library of sounds, to project into what they hear. that they indulge less into the learning of new, and more into the projection of old patterns of known - over new data that is slightly different.
In this case, the comparison is direct and valid, with regard to mental orientation and wiring.
