are you being deliberately obtuse i know this is a scientific subject but it seems that the writer of the article is being deliberately obtuse i quote the ear for example takes a spectral decomposition of sound as part of the process of turning sound into neural stimulus so certain time domain effects are inaudible now i'm grappling with what that sentence means i think i know what you are trying to convey but your method of speech is stupefying i am not a scientist by the way just someone interested in the subject of sound so when presented with a sentence like the one above i think to myself is this guy taking the piss i used to write this badly at a level when i wanted to impress the teacher i wanted to shag it looks nice all very academic but it conveys its meaning poorly a tip from a writer when conveying a difficult idea be explicit avoid pompous vague or technical statements unless you have no choice if you really must couch an explanation in such technical jargon add a second clarifying sentence for us mere mortals who do not understand the scientific jargon start a second sentence with 'in other words ' and repeat what you are trying to convey in very simply easy language example in other words some frequencies are lost when interpreting the physical sound we hear i'm not entirely sure if that was what you were trying to say because your original sentence was so palpably obtuse but i'm sure you get the gist if you absolutely positively have to use technical language ensure that you follow it up with a layman's explanation as best you can it doesn't matter if you can't convey what you mean absolutely accurately because the layman can then go back and read your original technical sentence and try to piece together what you are saying given the context of the easier sentence for god's sake once in a while go back and read what you are writing this whole article is riddled with raving gibberish and obfuscation absolutely unreadable