QuoteSo, the differences due to different shaped ears are removed by the brain, allowing different people to hear, or at least experience, similar things for a given external sound source.That is an interesting claim, but I cannot find scientific evidence to support your claim (there could easily be some, I'd like to know if there is). The whole hearing apparatus (including muscular coding in middle-ear and basilar membrane + hair cells in inner ear and neurochemical pathways to thalamus and onto cortex) does adapt to signals being fed to them (both over time and almost instanteneously)This is not AFAIK the same as "remove the differences due to different shaped ears". Especially if we are talking about high level cognitive auditory perception, rather than low level auditory evoked potentials. Perception remains invariably a subjective experience, as you have stated.Or have I completely misunderstood you (there's always that possibility)
So, the differences due to different shaped ears are removed by the brain, allowing different people to hear, or at least experience, similar things for a given external sound source.
QuoteWhen you inject the source straight into the ear (e.g. using headphones, so bypassing the pinna, and hence HRTF), that's when it gets weird.Err... how do you do that? With ordinary headphones you still get the coupling to head and pinnae and ear canal. Although you lose torso and head occlusion to some degree (depending on headphone construction), you don't "bypass HRTF".
When you inject the source straight into the ear (e.g. using headphones, so bypassing the pinna, and hence HRTF), that's when it gets weird.
Even for canalphones (say Etymotics) the ear canal acts as a (somewhat closed) resonant chamber and as we know, the length of ear canal is not standard from human to human.Did you mean something else (again)?
I have other comments to various other parts of your wonderful post (including direction discrimination and perception invariance), but have to leave my own comments truncated due real-life calling.
However, I'll take you point of view into account and move this into the off-topic section.This way, there will be no point anymore in saying that "this thread is unuseful".
Obviously beyond the limits we set, we are losing something. But in an analogue system, we also lose something - usually, a lot more.Please have a read through the threads in the FAQ - they really contain some great information - you don't have to bow to anyone's superior knowledge - you can read about it yourself and understand what really happens when a signal is digitised.EDIT: as to your actual point about lossless, I think Pio2001 already answered it perfectly. Of course, you are right - we just have to be careful about using the word - lossless compared to what?
And after all, an analog recording is just data, too, and therefore cannot infinitely capture source (live) audio.