Themis;353666 Wrote: > It's the same thing. If you can't hear a difference you can't identify X > precicely. And if you can't identify X precicely, you can't hear the > difference. Same thing.
But the subjects in this study -could- identify the difference - or so they claim. It says even in the abstract: "Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC." > In the article, they made EEG measures. The questions were auxiliary : > they were not used for the main part of the study, and the study > doesn't rely on them. There are three sections to the study: EEG, PET, and questionairre. Each is given its own section in methods and in results. All three are claimed to be statistically significant. So I don't know what you're talking about. > They say that "it is difficult to exclude the possibility that those > studies might have introduced a subjective evaluation that might not > precisely correspond to each sound condition". To me, it means that the > subjective evaluation is void. Eh?? You took that quote completely out of context - they are saying -precisely the opposite- of what you claim. They are referring to -previous- studies - the ones that used short sound samples. Obviously they believe their own analysis is valid - why else would they write a paper including it? If the study didn't include this "psychological" component it would be utterly irrelevant to audio (as opposed to almost totally irrelevant). But as I said their results on that contradict those of every other study every conducted by different authors, AFAIK, including the recent SACD test (which did NOT use short samples - the listener could switch with whatever frequency he/she desired). > That's for sure : Statistics are statistics. I use them three or four > times a week. This is the only part I can really discuss, but I didn't > notice any incorrect use. Perhaps I didn't read it carefully... I'll > give it another read. Good. Look at Results, EEG Experiment 1, and tell me why they are using F(2,63) when they only have 11 subjects. The results in the questionairre section are even more dubious. -- 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
