opaqueice;352477 Wrote: > That's just... wrong. You're directly contradicting the authors of this > paper:
Well, it seems that you insist that the methods used were the same as in earlier studies so it's no use to keep arguing about this. But, for the record, I state that studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979) did use questionnaires only and not EEG or PET scans of the brain. The paper states that also. You disagree? Furthermore: this study used 200s samples (complete song) and 10s interval. I state (as does the paper) that the studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979) did use 15-20s samples and 0.5s intervals. You disagree? (you also never seem to answer the questions I post so it's impossible to work down to the core of your disagreement... you evade.) Lastly, they did studies using EEG before (Oohashi et al. 1994) and the findings are in agreement with that study. > Those studies (probably among many others) showed that people cannot > distinguish between sounds including high frequencies and sounds not > including them. That *directly contradicts* the findings of this > study, and the method (on the question/response part of this research) > was essentially identical AFAIK. The only significant difference is > the length of the sample. You repeat again. Your AFAIK is fake because you know that "independent of a subjective evaluation of sound quality" EEG and PET measurements are differences too. I'll quote it here: "In our EEG and PET experiments, we focused on physiological brain responses and objectively evaluated the effect of the combination of audible sounds and inaudible HFCs on brain activity, independent of a subjective evaluation of sound quality." You also ignore the third part of the current study where they followed the same procedure as in the studies by Muraoka et al. (1978) and Plenge et al. (1979) and found the same results as they did in the 70's. > *Hypothesis*: people feel strange in environments (such as the damped > soundbooths this experiment probably used) with zero HFS present. > Adding HFS to music in an otherwise completely silent environment > "reassures" the brain that all is well, whereas playing only LFS leaves > this strange feeling. In a normal living-room type listening > environment with ambient HFS reproducing the HF content of music would > have no effect, because the background HFS field would "reassure" the > brain on its own. > > If that hypothesis is correct - and as far as I know it's consistent > with their data, even accepted at face value - these findings would > have no relevance whatsoever for home audio. You read the paper so you know that they describe the rooms where the tests were performed incl. the decorations, paintings on the wall and even the view from the window. But now you say that they "probably used damped soundbooths" which isn't trolling because I know you would never do that... but it feels like it is anyway. You also say that normal listening environments have ambient HF but I wonder how you know that or what it's source might be. Especially how that would be at the dB levels of playing music. The only info I find is that HF is present in natural environments like the rainforest, but I assume that audiophiles prefer a non-natural environment like a house (or boat). > Fact: neither people's brains nor conscious minds react to HFS alone. > > Claimed fact: people's brains and responses are different when exposed > to HFS+LFS versus LFS alone. It is not claimed anywhere that HF sound changes the brain. But it is an demonstrated fact that full range music results in a significant larger brain-response are shown by both EEG and PET scans as compared to the same music without the HF components. You can't accept that. But you --can-- accept that listening experience changes when you consume for example alcohol or have a good(!) smoke. Or that it changes in the presence of other fans of the song etc. In these cases, do you think that these factors change your ears? It is established that it doesn't change your ears but invokes other brain activity which, in combination with the music you hear, changes your listening experience. It's no different with this study when you replace the alcohol/smoke/fans with HF audio components. Now the BIG question: do you hear a difference between 44 and 48/96 kHz sampled music? Many, many audiophiles do and indeed, releasing these HD formats more and more (now 5000 SACD titles and 5000 DVD-audio titles) indicate that many prefer it. Why? > I repeat, how do you establish that the measuring gear you're using > doesn't exhibit this kind of non-linear response? You really can't > until you have a self-consistent theory for where the effect is coming > from, and so far there isn't one. Again you question the established EEG and PET scans. I wonder what you're gonna do if you would need any of these in a hospital? Question it's linear response with the doctors? I can not for my bone-marrow understand this non-linearity thing as neither measure anything linear related. What is so non-linear about measuring increased blood-flow in ones brain? Believe me, if a PET scan shows increased blood flow in part of your brain, you -have- increased blood flow in that part of your brain; similarly, if an EEG scan shows increased brainwave activity, you -have- increased brain activity (it's the key in defeating lie-detectors). If you don't accept that, it's your loss but I have no further wish trying to convince you of this (I fail obviously) so I'll leave it at that. On the theory for explaining the difference; how about the one in the paper: "sound frequencies in the audible range function as a message carrier and frequencies above the audible range, together with those in the audible range, function as a modulator of sound perception through the brain systems, including the reward-generating system." It will be many many decades or centuries before it is possible to explain how this works, because we know so little about how the brain works and learn so slow. That is no reason to ignore the fact that most, if not all, humans have a more satisfying listening experience when they use HD material ans especially audiophiles should explore and enjoy it. Good news for Sean: we all need a transporter! Like I wrote before, these findings were 8 years ago and we have accepted it and moved on to HD, no matter if you it or not. But now you have an explanation of why audiophiles claim that one sample over the other is "more satisfying" and similar wordings. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
