The paper you linked in the post I replied to starts on page 6151 and ends at 6156
As far as I can tell there are no mentions of microsecond long integration times in that paper.
And even the part you quoted now, what does a 1-5ms (ms as in mili, not micro) transmission delay has to do with the microsecond integration you calimed before?
So now you are saying that paper was irrelevant and linking to yet another paper that studies something else?
Am I supposed to play an endless game of cat and mouse with you where you keep switching papers?
Am i supposed to now ignore your previous claim on microsecond integration and chase the new set of claims?
The papers you are quoting now seem to say that when short pulses are heard, there is a delay and ringing.
Which is exactly what I showed you that happens in a graph when you capture a very short pulse at a low sampling rate.
It doesn't dissappear.
Here it is again in case you forgot:
As you can see the short pulse is captured at 48KHz, and there is ringing in the 48KHz signal, and it doesn't follow the pulse's outline.
Just like your new set of papers say.
In reality there will also be a delay, since the response to the pulse cant start before the pulse even started.
So it will becaptured, it will be reproduced, and according to the papers you quoted now, the 48Khz signal looks like what the ear was going to hear anyway.
If anyting the papers you quoted seem to suggest there is no point in capturing a perfect pulse shape, since the ear is going to hear a distorted version of it, which is in the milisecond, rathen than microsecond range.
The lowest number you quoted so far was (edit: in regards to the ears response, rather than the stimuli) "few hundred microseconds" which would be in the ~3Khz range which 48khz sampling can capture perfectly.
And I will also remind you that the time resolution of 16/44 is in the nano-second range.
It seems you think that quoting random scientific papers at people is going to convince them of unrelated claims.
I am done with this, its pointless.