DeVerm;352709 Wrote: > But that is just part 3 of this test and you conveniently leave out the > other 2 major parts so you can say the whole study is similar to > previous ones? That would not be correct.
But I didn't say it.... > "It seems, therefore, that an exposure to FRS shorter than 20 s, as > recommended by the CCIR and ITU-R, may be insufficient to introduce a > physiological effect. By the same token, a short exposure to HCS > following FRS with a short interval of 0.5-1 s may not be enough to > withdraw physiological effects, if any, induced by the preceding FRS. > Based on this physiological consideration, we performed our > psychological experiment with sound materials of longer duration. " Let's examine that a little. If in fact this is the correct explanation, it only adds to the oddness of the result. If it takes 10s of seconds for the brain to even respond to the HFS, this is something that has little or nothing to do with hearing. Precisely what it is I wouldn't want to speculate - but to think it has anything particular to do with music appreciation would be completely unjustified. I'd like to see this test repeated with random test-tones replacing the HF component. > True, but when they make a big point of subject comfort on both EEG and > PET testing, one can assume they did the same for the subjective part. I'm perfectly willing to give them that - that wasn't my point. My point is that since this is such a bizarre result, and since they are really grasping at straws to try to account for it, one has to worry about all sorts of things that would normally be discarded. I gave an example - perhaps HF ambient sound was absent in the testing room, and so HF sound was present only when they played it, and further perhaps that missing HF background somehow makes the subjects nervous. Far-fetched? Sure - but so are the results. > From what I read in this forum, we all are blessed with an above average > hearing because we could all hear the 18 kHz sample in that on-line > test! I wouldn't count on it. HF tones produce all kinds of lower frequency components when played over cheap computer speakers. When I did that test some time ago it was easier to hear the 18kHz than the 16, and I'm certain that is not because of some weird anomaly in my hearing response (it's due to some weird anomaly in the crappy soundcard and speakers I was using). Very few people I know can hear NTSC TV screens - that goes even for kids. And that's a little below 16kHz. > So, in your world, is it bad news for people like Sean with hi-end audio > kit like the transporter, or just bye bye to SACD/DVD-audio? I hope your > world has a place for improvement because red book is definitely not the > best we can do now and certainly not the best for the future. It's certainly not bad news. I have no problem at all with hi-rez formats - if you can do it, why not do it? And if it focuses attention on sound quality that's good in my book. But I think there are many other areas that are far more important and could gain much more from this kind of attention (room effects, bass management, DSP, dynamic compression, etc.). -- 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
