I'm sorry, but if you have a DSP background you should at least be able to give a better explanation than 'trust me'. I have a really tiny DSP background (a 3 w

I'm sorry, but if you have a DSP background you should at least be able to give a better explanation than 'trust me'. I have a really tiny DSP background (a 3 week lecture course), but specific questions that would help convince me of your point of view would be: - Sampling at a frequency 2f lets us reproduce the specific component of every frequency <= f (proved by Shannon, Nyquist etc). This can be easily proven mathematically, and were it not the case in practice would have been largely discredited (it's a fundamental of many fields).These 'jagged' waveforms must then have their frequency components <= f perfectly represented - the only components that are ignored are those that are > f (I've idealised here, but I'm assuming we've filtered correctly). If f is greater than the maximum frequency we can hear, why does it matter at all? - When the entire field of digital signal processing (and anyone who uses it, such as a sound engineer) relies on such math from top to bottom to make the recording process work, why should we ignore it as soon as we start experimenting and simply consider what our ears tell us? Why should you ask the question 'why does my mathematical knowledge of a subject fall short of explaining what many people seem to experience?' in the first place? It seems to imply that your ears are more accurate than a century of study, which at least seems arrogant. - A number of the points you've made (regarding people hearing different things) were explained in some way in the article. What are your views on that? I'm largely convinced that you're wrong (you've given no specific justification for any of your points), but I would be interested to hear what you have to say.