You know, there's not much more on the subject coming up on Google than I already read and statistics are not my favorite subject, so I am getting a bit bored too and won't go into all these details again.
But taking a big step back and looking at implications of the study for someone who believes that they know how to do statistics in the Japanese scientific and academic society and who gives the paper some credibility, is something I didn't do yet; My thoughts are that there is zero study-related impact on any of today's home listening environment. The simple reason is that we can't create the needed setup. When the studio's record music, they don't use the 2-100 kHz linear microphones, they don't correct for phase accuracy above 20 kHz etc. When they re-master an older analog tape, it doesn't have the HFC's anyway. But there's more: my speakers don't go up to 100 kHz, neither does my amp and the current SACD players on the market aren't good enough in the HFC range because they would have used a standard one for the later studies in that case. No wonder other tests don't give these results, it's no use discussing that and we'll never come to an agreement. And last but not least: most of the music I like isn't available in the format and won't be because they don't make that music anymore. It also won't change the lack of interest from audio kit manufacturers. With SACD and DVD-A failing to sell to the mass public as they are, it would not benefit their business to speak up about the paper as it indicates that their current players are flawed in the HF range. It also wouldn't help them if they developed players that are okay because it'll mean they will be more expensive and the market is surely not waiting for that to happen either. But I like it that they research this, who knows where it leads. Remember that many inventions are based on research that was unrelated to the invention. If we don't research, we don't progress, we don't know things. I have seen things during our travels here in South- and Central-America that I find a much bigger mystery than the observations from this study! Like fishing (bulldog) bats that catch fish from the water by using sonar that penetrates the water, finding and following this fast-swimming fish, and clawing it out of the water! Sonar, in that small animal, and correcting for the change in direction of the pulses of ultrasonic sound as they go from air to water but at the same time not applying that correction for other objects in the air around them... like a hundred other bats doing the same thing, not hitting each other at all... really amazing, even bizarre... but fact nonetheless. And when I read up on this, I find that they hunt alone or may be as a pair... and that they detect the fish by finding ripples at the surface... but I've seen at least a hundred doing it and not needing the ripples and the water was full of ripples from the bats themselves (Trinidad)! Clearly, there's more to research in that area too (back to topic ;-) So, I think that none of us is going to benefit from any of these findings. May be, if we question the findings so strongly, we should send an email to these researchers and ask them about it (they list their email address!) But I see no light on the path of discussing amongst ourselves if they did their math right or not. I tend to believe they did it right and I do not tend to believe that so many Japanese researchers will turn out to be flawed in their math, too stupid to realize factors that void their results, or even charlatans; if you think different, ask them, send an email, why not? I don't have the answers! ciao! Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
