Themis;353339 Wrote: > The differences about the studies given in the paper are discussed and > explained in the paper. If your explaniation differs, I would like to > discuss why.
Their explanation (that the difference is due to the fact that it takes 10s of seconds for the effect to manifest) is very far-fetched. It's not based on any theory about the origin of the effects they think they've found. And even if it's correct, until we know what's going on this test has essentially no relevance to audio. For example, the HF sounds necessary to cause the effect don't necessarily need to have anything to do with music, and might be present in normal listening environments at sufficient levels in any case. > I'm not aware of any other EEG tests, are you ? No, but it's not my field. > Or we consider that EEG tests and -say- conscious comparative tests > (like the ABX tests that me or you can do at home) are of the same > value ? It depends for what. For audio, the ABX-type test are much more valuable. We care about what we can hear and experience, not whether some phenomenon whose origin and meaning are not understood is going on in our brains. For the scientific study of human senses, the EEG might be more interesting since it provides some detail and may be more easily repeatable. -- 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
