By the way, I had a look at the citations to that paper. There are a total of 9 references in English which show up on google scholar, of which some are loudspeaker manufacturer white-papers, one is a description of the SACD standard, a few are by authors of the paper, and only one is a scientific paper by other authors (but at one of the same universities) - and it has nothing to do with HF sound audibility (I think the reference is due to some of the EEG techniques used).
This for a paper from 2000. Now this isn't my field, but a paper with only a few self-cites, industry whitepapers, and a single more or less peripheral reference from one's colleagues after 8 years is a failure. It usually means the paper is believed to be wrong by everyone else in the field and hence is ignored. Oh - and ISI turns up this one as well: "Signal to noise: calculating the high-resolution-audio reality-to-hype ratio" which refers to it as well. > If the benefits of a migration beyond 16-bit, 44.1-kHz audio are so > obscure, then why do so many people claim that the new formats sound so > much better, especially when they're auditioning in nonideal listening > environments? One pragmatic answer is that brains are fickle organs; if > someone wants to believe that one thing is better than another, the > brain happily distorts its sensory inputs to create the desired result. > If you've just spent tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade your gear > and music collection, that investment can be a strong perception > incentive. http://www.edn.com/article/CA272755.html http://www.edn.com/article/CA276213.html -- 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
