Would a direct interface to your brain sound better than normal headphones?

That would depend on the cables.

might as well give it some mental burn-in

I would think that air has it's own tonal characteristics that affect sound and it might even be necessary for good sound, but I like your thinking, it'd be interesting to see.

Another thing - you'd have to account for the way our ears affect the sound, and you'll probably want to add room effects, etc., etc. to make it sound more realistic.

It would be a different kind of "hearing", requiring entirely new synapses to be created, but I do not doubt it could have far greater resolution. On the other hand, I think it would require a lot of work to make it sound "normal". Even with very high resolution sensory equipment to replace your senses, there is no guarantee there will be good sensory integration.

 

There are people with very keen vision or hearing despite having physically very normal eyes and ears. It begs the question, what are they doing right and others doing wrong? I think sensing is half physical and half mental, sense organs is physical, data interpretation and controlling the muscles around the sense organs is mental.

I'm betting this would be a ot more complicated than it sounds.  We don't hear in just one location in the brain and when it comes to music, it's different than just sounds or just speech.

Get rid of the DAC too and go for a direct digital uplink for best quality sound. Our brains are based upon electrical activity, as demonstrated by neurosynaptic transmission. Then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the information and memory management portion of the brain to be based upon binary-based electrical impulses; we just need to get the right bio-engineer on board to consult with the coding team.

 

The physical interface could be a bit complicated, but there is precedent:

 

 

You read it here first, don't forget that  !

Edited by grokit - 12/20/10 at 12:59pm

With current and foreseeable technology, it would sound like crap.  Cochlear implants rely on a few dozen electrodes to simulate tens of thousands of sensory cells, moreover, what you get to hear is a crude approximation of a wavelength limited by tiny microphones and DSPs. This site has a few simulations: http://www.utdallas.edu/~loizou/cimplants/

 

Let's say that a few decades from now there's a quantum leap in neural interfaces and we have ICs that allow for complete simulation of a cell and flawless communication with live tissue. At that point, sound becomes just another arrangement to be played on the brain's organ. You could throw in a greater range of frequencies, better spatialization, instant access to any recorded sound. You could allow for sound to be perceived synaesthetically, across multiple senses, so that you could see music and it could literally touch you. With cognitive prostheses you could deliver meaning along with music, so you would experience the exact emotions at the exact time as determined by a composer. The whole body could become a musical instrument when you associate specific sounds with specific muscle activity. And so on to a transhumanist utopia not subject to skeptical inquiry or scientific constraints.

 

Though, I hear, live music already does a better job than headphones.

The Denon AKDL1 is perfect for this application, I think. Screw the headset, just plug 'er right in. The reviews speak for themselves.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1292908183&sr=8-1-spell

That's what I thought a couple of years ago. Screw the transducers: directly wire the neurons.

 

That would look fly coming out of the back of my head!

Except that it's blue. I hate blue.

 

:D

For optimum results, you'd have to drink a shot of Caig Progold, run the uplink cable through a garden hose and draw a circle around your head with a green marker.

And I've heard good things about sticking your head in liquid nitrogen.