You hear in digital, silly!

Cpyder

I thought this is a neat topic and would like to hear how many pennies (2 cents) you have to throw at it.

When a sound hits your ears, the inner working of you ear vibrates to the sound energy and neurons fire to certain centers in your brain. The firing of these neurons is a discrete signal. (It is not continuous, it can be quantified in terms of # neurons fired / second - it is digital)

Has anyone ever heard of or read any research as to what an effective sampling rate would be this signaling. I'm guessing it exceeds the highest sampling rates of digital recordings of today. But, I'm not all that knowledgeable in the nervous system and electrochemical signaling.

potee

Man your way over my head I'v never given a thought to how it works, But I'll watch this thread as it sounds interesting.

madmax

I wonder what the effective sample rate is?

dkg999

The sampling rate of my brain is far beyond the ability of mere mortals to comprehend and lives in that quantum space within the wormhole near the omega galaxy. Long live Q.

Cpyder

I read somewhere that the human nervous system has anywhere from 100 trillion to 1 quadrillion synapses. If 1/10 of a percent of them where for the auditory system and 1/10 of a percent of those where firing any given second, that leaves a sampling rate of...

(grabbing a calculator)

100 million samples / second.

Pretty crude math. Probably no fact in it, but still...

bikerboy

It all has to go through your eardrum which is analog. Just like all the stereos in the world have to go through a analog speaker. I have no idea what the sampling rate of the electrons in the auditory part of the brain would be but it must excede any audible sounds or we would have problems.

unc2701

There's also a discrete number of hairs in your inner ear- this is probably a bigger limiting factor than the neurons.

Willow

I wonder if having excess wax in your ear would smooth out the sound?

nooshinjohn

Willow wrote: »

I wonder if having excess wax in your ear would smooth out the sound?

no... but I imagine the highs would be really bright and shiny:D There is also a possibility that scratches on LP's might be less noticeable.

heiney9

Cpyder wrote: »

I read somewhere that the human nervous system has anywhere from 100 trillion to 1 quadrillion synapses. If 1/10 of a percent of them where for the auditory system and 1/10 of a percent of those where firing any given second, that leaves a sampling rate of...

(grabbing a calculator)

100 million samples / second.

Pretty crude math. Probably no fact in it, but still...

Yeah, we don't hear in digital. I will say because of the complexity and sensitivity of our brains, central nervous system, interpretation, analysis, etc. There is no man made measuring device that can match or quantify or explain why we hear what we hear.

This is EXACTLY why I always believe my ears over any printed specs or theories, or deductive scientific measurements, etc. The human brain and it's corresponding systems are far more acute than any mechanical man made measuring device or system could ever hope to be. Then add in the subjective nature of what we hear, how we hear, and our personal biases and audiophelia becomes a very personal experience.

H9

madmax

Even worse than hearing in digital, we have to multitask at the same time. I want an analog implant.
madmax

Shizelbs

Comparing it to digital is a bit of an oversimplifcation. Its a fair more complex than that.

seeclear

+1000/\ /\ /\ /\

vc69

Willow wrote: »

I wonder if having excess wax in your ear would smooth out the sound?

I have some scientifically formulated earwax that makes any speaker sound like SDA SRS's. If you are interested, I will sell you a sample at a very reasonable price.

Oh, and it also makes CD's sound analog.

fossy

hope the good lord didn't use monster cables !!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe in the ppl that are tone deaf .....:D:D:D:D

Cpyder

Shizelbs wrote: »

Comparing it to digital is a bit of an oversimplifcation. Its a fair more complex than that.

True but all signals are either discrete or continuous. It is a simplification because if you wanted to, you could argue sound waves are discrete since there are a finite number of gas molecules. But then that makes you think... How "continuous" does a discrete sample have to be to be considered continuous? Can a sample rate be high enough to be considered analogue?

Shizelbs

I think of digital as a binary based system where at some point there is a decoder that will take a chain of one of two inputs, and convert that into an analog equivalent. The auditory system take neural impulses (about the only thing about it that could be argued as digital), but also accounts for frequency of those impulses, physical vibration, transduced sound through the skull, and it still factors in what the other ear is presenting to the brain before its all done 'being processed'. The key difference between true digital like a CD and our system is there are thousands of input channels (if not millions), and the neuron firing rate is critical.

Willow

vc69 wrote: »

I have some scientifically formulated earwax that makes any speaker sound like SDA SRS's. If you are interested, I will sell you a sample at a very reasonable price.

Oh, and it also makes CD's sound analog.

Only if it comes with a lifetime supply of belly-button lint!

bobman1235

Cpyder wrote: »

It is a simplification because if you wanted to, you could argue sound waves are discrete since there are a finite number of gas molecules. But then that makes you think... How "continuous" does a discrete sample have to be to be considered continuous? Can a sample rate be high enough to be considered analogue?

Correct, and you coudl say everything we experience is "digital" because the brain and nervous system are "electrical." But that doesn't really mean anything; if the "discreteness" is so fine as to for all intents and purposes be continuous, it's irrelevant.

Same goes for vision; I always thought the Wagon-Wheel Effect was in fact our eyes showing their refresh rate in a funny way, it actually isn't and the way we perceive things is fascinatingly complex.

Willow

if I move my fingers very fast and hear noise...That is Digital for sure!

vc69

Willow wrote: »

Only if it comes with a lifetime supply of belly-button lint!

Sorry, no lint. But I can throw in some acoustically isolated toe cheese

Cpyder

bobman1235 wrote: »

Correct, and you coudl say everything we experience is "digital" because the brain and nervous system are "electrical." But that doesn't really mean anything; if the "discreteness" is so fine as to for all intents and purposes be continuous, it's irrelevant.

Same goes for vision; I always thought the Wagon-Wheel Effect was in fact our eyes showing their refresh rate in a funny way, it actually isn't and the way we perceive things is fascinatingly complex.

Agreed. I almost don't want to say this because it would be for a different forum post, but could a sample rate on a CD be high enough to be considered analog like a record? I would think yes

heiney9

No, never. Analog is continuous; digital is a "plotted" representation of the continous analog signal......digital will never be continous even if you upsampled to infinity. Digital will never be *exactly* the same as the analog wave form. That's the theory, (in very simplistic terms) but how it interacts with each person's preception and interpretation of sound is anyones guess.

Still there is a difference in sound (I perceive it) between analog and digital. Some prefer one over the other, but I doubt anyone in this hobby a long time would argue they sound exactly the same.

You really need to read up on sampling as well because there are side effects created that have to be dealt with.

H9

Cpyder

I mean to represent an analog signal. Not to make it sound like a record or tape.

Also if sampling rate = infinity, then yes - you've represented every possible point and hence it is analog

heiney9

Cpyder wrote: »

I mean to represent an analog signal. Not to make it sound like a record or tape.

Also if sampling rate = infinity, then yes - you've represented every possible point and hence it is analog

Well, I have yet to see an upsampler for audio use that samples to infinity. Also don;t forget about the side effects of upsampled signals. They need to be dealt with also.

So again I say no, you can't upsample to high enough degree to make a digital signal sound or appear analog.

mmadden28

bikerboy wrote: »

It all has to go through your eardrum which is analog. Just like all the stereos in the world have to go through a analog speaker. ....

Then one would expect the eardrum to convert the digital recordings we hear to analog- no? My eardrum isn't digital.

ShinAce

check out:
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Chris_Darwin/Perception/Lecture_Notes/Hearing2/hearing2.html#RTFToC9

He basically says the recovery time before an impulse can fire again is 1 ms = 1KHz . However, each hair has roughly 10 nerve fibers and they trigger in specific ways so they tend to trigger on multiples of frequency received.

George Grand

I hear in color.

potee

vc69 wrote: »

Sorry, no lint. But I can throw in some acoustically isolated toe cheese

And I always thought that was JAM. Oh well no toast with you guys

agfrost

My ears are (eustachian) tubed.

Tubes rule!


Jay

TECHNOKID

What a great topic here! This led me to do some technical experimenting. I hooked-up my scope to the output of my hear drums which reacts inversly to my "spearkers" and voila! I came to the conclusion that the signal is a sine wave thus an analog signal but I realized the brain does the pre- and the amping (yet I have to admit it is not high end but mid-fi) :cool: