"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant.

blah blah blah

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

When I said "it's not relevant", what didn't you understand?

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.


In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or the ear
does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect, period.
"Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's doesn't work
perfectly.