DeVerm;351942 Wrote: > Yes, but I was comparing it with the much praised ABX testing and the > software utils for that like in foobar.
But that's more or less precisely the format that was used here! If you don't agree, please explain how it was different in any significant way. > They use short samples and repetitions. That's an oft-repeated audiophile canard, and it's just false. Have you ever used the ABX plugin in foobar? I have, and I don't recall any time limit on the samples. Moreover you as the listener have complete control over when the switch takes place. You can switch as often or infrequently as you choose. > There are many audiophiles that state that even though they don't hear > the difference during abx testing, they will prefer one over the other > after a longer period of listening at home. They are often ridiculed by > others that state "abx proves". Well, it's now been proven that abx is > seriously flawed so these ridiculed audiophiles might actually be the > ones who were right and all the loud-mouths with their "abx=true" were > wrong even if the ridiculed are wrong too. I find that totally incomprehensible. The test you are claiming somehow proves abx is flawed was a blind test with a very similar protocol! So what on earth could you possibly mean? > The instruments showed the same brain response for 1) and 4) so the high > frequencies had no effect on the measuring equipment. That's making precisely the assumption about the measuring gear that this research is challenging when applied to human hearing - that absence of an effect with high frequencies alone indicates absence of an effect with both high and low frequencies present. If that's their argument, it's logically contradictory. > Your response is typical for anyone who doesn't like or otherwise wants > to play down the findings of research done: attack the researchers. I'm a professional scientist. Anyone who has followed the progress of scientific research - not just the excitement when results are first released, but the situation years down the line - knows that many solid looking scientific results turn out to be wrong, and that financial bias is strongly correlated with false results. Just look at all the research the tobacco industry sponsored over the years. Many university departments refuse funding from corporations entirely, for precisely that reason. > The document clearly states that Pioneer is the manufacturer and not > Tsutomu Oohashi. Oohashi works for 1) Department of KANSEI Brain > Science, ATR Human Information Processing Research Laboratories, Kyoto; > and 2) Department of Network Science, Chiba Institute of Technology, > Narashino. So he's a researcher that developed a speaker for Pioneer > which is very normal and done by many researchers when a manufacturer > doesn't have the knowledge in-house. If he designed the speaker he was paid by Pioneer, and may well receive royalties on sales. This article will promote sales of speakers with supertweeters. That's about as clear a conflict of interest as you can get. > On the "going against a century of other research": explain, no one > researched with these methods before and the equipment for doing it > wasn't available anyway. You seem to imply that the 10 institutes > involved, incl. hospitals and universities, are presenting something > else than the truth? You would be the one that has to prove that, they > don't need to defend themselves against wild accusations like that > because they are established and worthy organizations. Don't be ridiculous. Almost all scientific research is carried out by collaborations involving many people, institutions, funding agencies, etc. - and much of it is wrong, particularly when it makes a new claim that goes against previous results. Such claims must be independently reproduced by several groups using different methodologies before they can be taken at all seriously. That's what any responsible scientist will tell you; it's about as far from a "wild accusation" as you can get. > And they don't state that you can hear above 20 kHz. They confirm that > you can't. They even confirm that harmonics above 20 kHz by themselves > are not noticed by our brains at all. No, that's not correct. They didn't find evidence that HF sounds alone are audible using a particular set of tests - that's it. > But they do -prove- (not just -claim-) that a full sound up to 100 kHz > does make a big difference with all tested persons of which the > youngest was 18 years old and the oldest 34. That's of course wrong too. Science cannot prove anything; at best it can provide compelling evidence. Were we to accept all the assertions of the experimenters at face value this would indeed be compelling evidence, but I have too much experience with this sort of thing to do so. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=53345 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
