DeVerm;352008 Wrote: > You are right that you have control and can listen to each sample as > long as you want. But that is not the way it is done: samples are > mostly 10-20 seconds long and intervals between two samples are often > 0.5-1 second.
Evidence for "mostly"? I've done quite a few blind tests, and some were done with quick switches, some with long. Same goes with the ones I've read about - in fact I think you're wrong and most blind tests these days are done with long samples, just to address this complaint. > All blind tests up until this one in Japan were trying to find out if > humans can -hear- sounds of high frequencies. This was the scope for > which the tests were designed. But it turns out that this scope was > wrong because we indeed can't hear the difference but we can > -experience- it and our brain registers it! Nope. According to the paper (at least as far as I can see from what they wrote), several very similar experiments were done in the past, and the results disagree with theirs. I gave the references above. That's why they bother to try to justify the difference. Moreover the recent SACD tests also apply to this (although one would have to check how the high frequency response of the playback gear was). > Furthermore, as explained in the research article, conventional abx > testing is based on a questionaire where the tester notes his/her > findings. > That's *exactly* what they did in one major component of their experiment. > I'm afraid that my English isn't good enough because I can't follow you > here. What they measured was "no difference" between "silence" and > "high pass only". This proves that the equipment used did not > experience interference by the high-pass signals. This has nothing to do with language. Think about it - you're making -precisely- the same assumption about the gear which this paper is claiming was wrong for human hearing - that not being affected by the HF signal alone means it will not have an effect when combined with LF. > Last is the honesty of the researchers. Did you look at who was > involved? This was not a laboratory doing this like so many "funny" > research projects that you compare it to (tabacco industry etc) but > there are 10 researchers from 10 organizations, none of them > commercial. Do you really think that all of them collaborated in > presenting a lie? How can you live your life if you truly believe that? Again, you're attacking a straw man. I said nothing of the sort. There are all sorts of ways in which research can be wrong, and lying is dead last on the list. It's quite rare - but wrong research is very, very common. > Also, you state that research is only "right" after some time and many > other experiments that confirm the original one. So, the guy that first > stated that the world wasn't flat was indeed a fraud? > The world was still flat at that point in time? Erecting straw men and knocking them down is a common technique of internet (and real life) trolls. It's not very effective. So I'll give you credit and assume you're simply failing to comprehend what I said. I didn't say it's only right after other experiments have confirmed it - that would be patently absurd. I said one shouldn't take it seriously until it's confirmed. I repeat - that's standard practice in every field of science, and for a very good reason: much "ground-breaking research" turns to be wrong. > And he paid off the other 9 researchers to lie and throw away their > careers... More absurdities ignored. > Or that they never work for commercial projects at all? They don't have > a choice because their employer will sign contracts anyway. Every > university will do that. You're wrong. Many departments do that, and it's lead to countless debates in universities across the US, at least (some of which I've been involved with). > wow... please elaborate on that first part; list some examples of > research findings that were wrong and conducted by these big > collaborations. I could give tens of thousands of examples in my own field (physics). Pick any paper, the odds are good at least part of the conclusions are wrong. Papers that challenge a body of other research have much higher odds of that. > Also, you again write that the current findings go -against- previous > results. They do not. They confirm the previous results: "nobody" can > hear above 20 kHz. What they found was a missing link that many > (professionals) thought was there but couldn't put their fingers on. It > turned out that they were looking at the wrong spot: the ear, instead of > the brain. This research definitely doesn't go against any previous > research. You disagree with the authors of the paper on that. I'll let you argue with them. :) -- 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
