opaqueice;352132 Wrote: > 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.
Well... okay, I'll go with that although you did talk about "conflict of interest" etc. which was an unfounded, direct attack on the researchers credibility but lets just leave that behind us. So you say that "wrong research" is very, very common. Being a researcher yourself, do you differentiate between "making a claim" and "demonstrating a phenomena" ? My understanding of "demonstrating" is that they repeatedly show something happening using established methods of measurement, which is why I made the "world is not flat" comparison as that would be a "claim" because nobody understood the methods used to come to that statement. So, what exactly do you suspect is wrong in this demonstration they described? Do you question the recorded brain activities itself? (pls. answer so I understand your objections) or do you question that those recordings are the result of listening to the different sound-samples they used? If so, how do you feel about the verification method they applied with two different measurement techniques (PET and EEG)? Or do you question their possible explanations for the demonstrated phenomena? If so, they question those too but just include two -possible- explanations and mostly invalidate one of these themselves describing it as "unlikely". > 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. I follow you here, I understand what you mean. But I feel different about a clear and simple and repeatable demonstration vs a claim that results from procedures that use never-used-before manipulations or chemical reactions etc. I think the following quote is relevant: "Indeed, the Advanced Audio Conference organized by the Japan Audio Society (1999) proposed two next-generation advanced digital audio formats: super audio compact disk (SACD) and digital versatile disk audio (DVD-audio). These formats have a frequency response of up to 100 kHz and 96kHz, respectively. However, the proposal was not based on scientific data about the biological effects of the HFCs that would become available with these advanced formats. Although recently there have been several attempts to explore the psychological effect of inaudible HFCs on sound perception using a digital audio format with a higher sampling rate of 96 kHz (Theiss and Hawksford 1997; Yamamoto 1996; Yoshikawa et al. 1995, 1997), none of these studies has convincingly explained the biological mechanism of the phenomenon. This may reflect in part the limitations of the conventional audio engineering approach for determining sound quality, which is solely based on a subjective evaluation obtained via questionnaires." So, this was the 5th study for explaining this phenomenon and as it was published in 2000 and google-search lists it in every medical database on-line and I can't find any follow-up studies, I take it that it was convincingly enough for the research community to accept it. Nobody questioned it and nobody did a follow-up study to show otherwise. So, now, 8 years later, how much longer do you want to wait before taking it serious? I think it's accepted as general knowledge already and as the HD-audio was already in production, there was no big ground-braking research as you call it. It was just a confirmation that the new SACD and DVD-audio formats do make a difference and everybody moved on. > You're wrong. Many scientific departments refuse such funding, and that > has lead to countless debates in universities across the US, at least > (some of which I've been involved with). My own research is funded by > the US National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and a > university which derives its income from tuition and private donations. Okay, I stand corrected. My experience is with the Technical University in Delft, Holland (worldwide recognized as a leading TU, also in your field of expertise), where many, many student thesis (? final essay, again my English is too limited to find the correct word..) is based on a corporate "customer" or a project for something that was not done before. I was involved with a design for a new way to operate a system of locks (for ships) that was later built in Africa by the "customer". > You disagree with the authors of the paper on that. I'll let you argue > with them. :) My previous post already addressed this with the relevant quote that shows that the findings are in agreement with the previous studies, but again, I emphasize that they confirm that you can't hear above 20 kHz and if you don't agree with that, show me a quote. The paper says that the brain registers it, directly or indirectly, and only when in combination with the < 20 kHz components of the music. It does not say that your ears are the sensor for this. cheers, Nick. -- DeVerm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DeVerm's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18104 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
