Julf wrote: > That might well be, but as your quote shows, he states rather clearly > "The above results contribute ***nothing*** to the established science > of 192/24 versus 44.1/16 and human hearing", so we should not draw any > such conclusions from it.I didn't say that it "contributes" anything either - > I simply mentioned that he has developed a "preference" for high-res material during his work. This may well be a preference biased by expectation but his ABX results confirm that he is able to differentiate these examples.
> That is something you might choose to speculate, but I don't think that > thread provides any evidence for or against such a theory.No more evidence or > less evidence for or against than your speculation. > *I think that is a rather too strong a statement to conclude from that > specific test *(as shown by the other comments in that thread). Anyway, > let's not get sidetracked - I think we can conclude that it is possible > that some differences might require training and concentration to pick > out - anything beyond that is speculation, unsupported by empirical > data. Huh? This is his statement, not mine! Do you not accept his ABX results? What part of his statement do you think is too strong "-They do establish that when I say, "It sounds better to me", I am reporting a provable reality, not a placebo effect."?- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
