DeVerm;353681 Wrote: > > 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.
That's true and a good point. The tweeters in my speakers are down 5dB at 30 kHz and 20dB at 40. I'm not sure about my amp (the published specs only go up to 20kHz), but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar. > 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. Fully agreed. I'm happy people are studying this, and I hope there will be follow-ups from other groups. If there really is an effect there (and there may well be) it would be interesting to find out what it is. > 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? The issue of whether an effect is statistically significant or not can be very subtle - in fact at its care it's not really a mathematical question at all. I'm not saying they did arithmetic wrong, I'm saying it looks like they applied the wrong statistical test (not the wrong test in general, but in the specifics). Just to give you an example, I read lots of astrophysics papers that analyze data from radio and optical telescopes. They are all written by smart, honest, and highly competent researchers (well, almost all!). And yet they sometimes come to very different (as in completely contradictory!) conclusions about the significance of some interesting anomaly in the data. There are all kinds of reasons why that can happen - the most common is when data points are not independent but the analysis assumes they are. Those kind of subtle correlations in data can be -very- difficult to account for. This goes even more strongly for medicine - it's really, really, really hard to account for all possible confounding factors when you study things as complex as humans. By the way, this was a fun conversation, even if it got a little heated at times. :-) -- 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
