We are going around in a never ending circle.
You keep asking the same questions. Yet with different perspectives of the same answer, you return with the same questions.


Accepted. Multiple instruments, sound sources, voices in a noisy room. It doesn't matter.


Agreed. Accepted. I don't know what you mean by "unilaterally". However, it doesn't matter what is the diaphragm, whether a membrane on the eardrum, a microphone, or seismograph.


True. Accepted. It really doesn't matter if it is binary numbers, voltage, pressure, light illumination. It is a time series of information. All the information is contained in the data pattern.


We already told you. The data is not stored anywhere. The data is inherent in the changing time series, in this case an acoustic pressure wave. There has to be air or some medium involved. Sound does not travel in a vacuum.

Is it possible to deconstruct the data back to the original sources by mechanical, analytical, computer, artificial intelligence?
Yes. Perfect deconstruction - no. Reasonable deconstruction so that we can recognize the sources, yes, very possible.

How is the ear able to deconstruct and decode the data in the wave?
That is the area of psychoacoustics and demonstrates the marvel of the human brain.

You say here: "The data is not stored anywhere. The data is inherent in the changing time series, in this case an acoustic pressure wave. There has to be air or some medium involved. Sound does not travel in a vacuum."

Then say, "How is the ear able to deconstruct and decode the data in the wave?"

??????

You first said the data is not stored anywhere, but then you said the data is decoded in the wave?? The data is in the wave, or where is it???

 

Assuming no meta-physicality whatsoever, the brain is nothing more than a machine — classical, quantum, what have you — a numeric processing device.

Where did you learn this?
That is categorically incorrect. The brain is not a machine.

Software can "decode" the wave somewhat as well, and break it up into a few of its constituent parts as can the brain.

Maybe. But the human brain and an electronic computer are two different things. They will process the data differently and produce different results.

It's not like we have a mic for each instrument picking up a separate wave with separate data, where we're seeing separate tracks in a DAW. We have ONE diaphragm vibrating in this scenario. The brain and software can "decode" "it"... *IT* is the question! at NO time is there "piano, strings, and trumpets" in the binary information that wave was reduced to. Yet it is fed back to a digital-to-analog converter, and the reconstructed wave represents ALL of those waves that occurred during that time, as if the diaphragm were ITSELF a multi-track recorder.

You have said this before. We understand this. Nothing has changed in your line of questioning.
The answer is - the information is embedded in the data. Your refuse to accept this.

At t=3s to t=5s, for example, where is the piano, guitar, drums, "represented" so that they can be "heard as separate entities" from that wave if literally a ribbon simply picked up ONE variance of air pressure at any give time duration?

Do you see my issue here?

No. I do not see your issue because we have already given you the answers.

I can come to no other conclusion other than the fact that you are a troll.

 

You say here: "The data is not stored anywhere. The data is inherent in the changing time series, in this case an acoustic pressure wave. There has to be air or some medium involved. Sound does not travel in a vacuum."

Then say, "How is the ear able to deconstruct and decode the data in the wave?"

??????

You first said the data is not stored anywhere, but then you said the data is decoded in the wave?? The data is in the wave, or where is it???

"Butterflies are insects"

There is information in the above statement. Where is the data stored?

 

I am not a troll. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Sorry for the aggravation, but you're not hearing what I'm trying to ask for some reason.

The wave is a sequence of numbers, in the end. The numbers can be used to reconstruct it by varying voltages based on those numbers.

The numbers, when "heard" by the brain or software, end up being essentially "multi-track" within the same wave.

I have yet to hear an explanation as to how "00100010010011..." = trumpet and "01010101010..." = reverb and "01010111001.." = drums.

You said "it's in the wave" and yet "not in the wave" in the same post above. Where is it?

 

"Butterflies are insects"

There is information in the above statement. Where is the data stored?

You tell me!

 

I can come to no other conclusion other than the fact that you are a troll.

A 150 IQ troll.

 

A 150 IQ troll.

Yep. Lol... Seriously, "where's the beef". WHERE is the data in the wave, if we can literally deconstruct it to 0's and 1's, and then reconstruct it by simply varying voltages. The Trumpet's reverb exists as "00001011101..." on line 204 of the file. But the same "00001011101..." AT THE SAME TIME is the drum's snare, the piano hit...

WHERE is this information??

 

Yep. Lol... Seriously, "where's the beef". WHERE is the data in the wave, if we can literally deconstruct it to 0's and 1's, and then reconstruct it by simply varying voltages. The Trumpet's reverb exists as "00001011101..." on line 204 of the file. But the same "00001011101..." AT THE SAME TIME is the drum's snare, the piano hit...

WHERE is this information??

It's embedded in Troll postings. Give it up. This is just boring now.

 

It's embedded in Troll postings. Give it up. This is just boring now.

What's boring about this question? This is one of the most fascinating questions there is... you have a finite digital file of 0's and 1's, and one solitary section of a wave can represent a veritable infinite multitrack of sonic information that can be "zoomed in upon"??? Huh?? How is this trolling??

 

What's boring about this question? This is one of the most fascinating questions there is... you have a finite digital file of 0's and 1's, and one solitary section of a wave can represent a veritable infinite multitrack of sonic information that can be "zoomed in upon"??? Huh?? How is this trolling??

The answer to that question is something a person with a real 150 IQ learned in high school. Boring.

 

You are confuscating two things, (1) a pressure wave and (2) a sequence of zeros and ones.
You need to separate the two things unless that is what is confusing you.

Let us take the example I gave.

"Butterflies are insects"

This is a sentence, a statement, a message. There is information in the message. Information is data.
We can transmit this message in a digital form.

For example, the word "are" can be transmitted over computer networks as
0110001 01110010 01100101

Just accept that for now. It doesn't really matter. The point is that it is a message. For most people it is without meaning.
We can do the same thing with the other two words.

The message is transmitted as a collection of 0s and 1s.
Yet, there is information in the message. The information is embedded in the meaning of each of the three words.
Furthermore, information is embedded in the syntactic relationship of the three words.
For example,

"Insects are butterflies"

is not the same sentence. The information is different.

My point is, there is information in the message, though you may be unable to perceive the information correctly.
An acoustic waveform is a message. The information is in the message.

 

The answer to that question is something a person with a real 150 IQ learned in high school. Boring.

I was absent that day, apparently, and the paranormal hotline was busy.

So please do tell me, with all due respect, where the trumpet's Bb, the snare hit, the piano's C#min13 chord, and the rhodes arpeggiation — a literal multi-track recording — found in the single wave processed as:

01010010101010110101011111010010101010101000000000101010
1010100111011101010100110010110010101001101010101000110
01111010100100000000101010010111101010110010101010101001
000101101010101010100110010010101010101010101010100101100
....

And that those "discrete individual components" can be identified as separate entities once the wave is reconstructed.

 

Simple, the piano's C#min13 is right there in the middle if you had cared to look.

01010010101010110101011111010010101010101000000000101010
1010100111011101010100110010110010101001101010101000110
01111010100100000000101010010111101010110010101010101001
000101101010101010100110010010101010101010101010100101100

And I also know a troll when I see one.

 

You are confuscating two things, (1) a pressure wave and (2) a sequence of zeros and ones.
You need to separate the two things unless that is what is confusing you.

Let us take the example I gave.

"Butterflies are insects"

This is a sentence, a statement, a message. There is information in the message. Information is data.
We can transmit this message in a digital form.

For example, the word "are" can be transmitted over computer networks as
0110001 01110010 01100101

Just accept that for now. It doesn't really matter. The point is that it is a message. For most people it is without meaning.
We can do the same thing with the other two words.

The message is transmitted as a collection of 0s and 1s.
Yet, there is information in the message. The information is embedded in the meaning of each of the three words.
Furthermore, information is embedded in the syntactic relationship of the three words.
For example,

"Insects are butterflies"

is not the same sentence. The information is different.

My point is, there is information is in the message, though you may be unable to perceive the information correctly.
An acoustic waveform is a message. The information is in the message.

That's excellent, and I fully concur, and fully understand those concepts coming from more of an info theory awareness.

The "signifier" (signal) and what it's "signifying" are two different things, and that's at the core of what I'm getting at here, actually.

In the case of this scenario, the wave variation picked up by the mic is directly "representing" the presence of multi-source vibrations by unifying it into a single wave from reality. Once digitized, the binary information is now implicitly carrying within it the information of multi-sources within the single wave—like "multi-track in one track". This is the mystery. How is a digitized-wave into a finite set of zeroes and ones representing an infinite point-source combination, so that a "clarinet" along with a noise in the audience, a reverb, and a D minor chord on the piano are all reduced to simple voltage variations to represent them?? How many different combinations within a single digital file can we you have, and yet have infinite combinations it can represent all simultaneously in such "one wave" that can be parsed?

 

I'm done.

 

Simple, the piano's C#min13 is right there in the middle if you had cared to look.

01010010101010110101011111010010101010101000000000101010
1010100111011101010100110010110010101001101010101000110
01111010100100000000101010010111101010110010101010101001
000101101010101010100110010010101010101010101010100101100

And I also know a troll when I see one.

Yeah, but,

"11101010100110010110010101001101010101000110
01111010100100000000101010010111101010110010"

also represents some heckler in the audience saying "Please see the bizarreness that this sequence ALSO represents the C#min13 chord AND what I'm saying in addition to an uncountable number of other 'multi-track'-esque audible combinations... but as 'somehow' represented finitely by essentially a small set of morse code."

 

I'm done.

View attachment 203331

Dude, I'm not trolling, you're giving up on the question. But thank you for the great input.

Simple: one wave is carrying, essentially multi-track CONCURRENT info by a dimensionally agnostic vibrating membrane.

The wave, a sequence of numbers, is carrying the data preternaturally. No other explanation in my mind, and no one has one (and I've emailed 5 professors on it).

Thanks for the discussion.

 

Some "troll" I am, to take the time to make even a graphic of it:

 

I can't believe it's been 5 pages of this... I'm done.

 

Hi,

This make me also think of a TV commercial vs the normal show that is playing at the time.
Try to come up with electronics that can separate the two and dim the volume when the commercial comes on. Back some time ago this was possible but only because the commercials transmitted a special signal of some kind. But today you'd have to use some sort of AI to get the same results. That would mean doing statistical analysis of the program information probably both visual and audio at the same time.
Now a human can almost always do this, but there are times when they cant either. That is when the commercial content is very nearly the same as the normal shows programming. It even takes a while for a human to figure that out.