DeVerm;352595 Wrote: > 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?
No, that's exactly what I said (several times already). The questionnaire/listener response part of this study was more or less identical - other than the length of the samples - to those previous papers. Its results contradict those of the previous studies. > (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.) No, you just don't read my posts. > 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 said "on the question/response part of the study". There is no point in continuing this if you don't even read what I write and instead attack something from your own imagination (as you have done repeatedly). > 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. That was for the EEG part of the experiment. As far as I can see they never describe the conditions under which the questionairre part was conducted. > 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). All natural sounds have harmonics. Precisely how much is present will be a function of the specific environment. But just as an example, an NTSC TV screen produces a sound around 16kHz (which I can hear, by the way) plus harmonics. Computer monitors also produce HF sounds, as do florescent lights, and probably lots of other household electronics. > 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? There is no evidence for that assertion. Time and time again audiophiles have made such claims, only to fail completely when asked to distinguish blind. A recent case was the failure of hundreds of subjects tested over two years to distinguish between 16/44 and SACD. That study was much more directly relevant to home audio than this one. Not one subject succeeded. > Again you question the established EEG and PET scans. I'm simply applying precisely the same convoluted logic to the instruments the experimenters applied to human hearing. > Like I wrote before, these findings were 8 years ago and we have > accepted it and moved on to HD, no matter if you believe it or not. What world are you living in? In mine, hi-res audio formats are dead (albeit still twitching occasionally). -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
