opaqueice;353370 Wrote: > Their explanation (that the difference is due to the fact that it takes > 10s of seconds for the effect to manifest) is very far-fetched. It's > not based on any theory about the origin of the effects they think > they've found. And even if it's correct, until we know what's going on > this test has essentially no relevance to audio. For example, the HF > sounds necessary to cause the effect don't necessarily need to have > anything to do with music, and might be present in normal listening > environments at sufficient levels in any case. > It's hard to say, indeed, at first, that it's the duration that caused the difference. In the paper they state it as a "probable explanation" (don't remember the exact words). In fact, they made several experiments with short (sub 30-seconds) and they didn't notice anything on their EEGs. Then, with longer duration, they coud measure something. Perhaps it's not the duration (as they state it's "probable") but, as the duration was the only thing that changed, they conclude it's related. But I agree with you, it may not be the only (or the main) cause of the different EEG measures. What is for sure, it's that' it has something to do with the duration.
opaqueice;353370 Wrote: > No, but it's not my field. Mine neither, it was a genuine question. opaqueice;353370 Wrote: > It depends for what. For audio, the ABX-type test are much more > valuable. We care about what we can hear and experience, not whether > some phenomenon whose origin and meaning are not understood is going on > in our brains. > > For the scientific study of human senses, the EEG might be more > interesting since it provides some detail and may be more easily > repeatable. In my case, for audio, I prefer sub-conscious (or un-conscious) studies than conscious ones. Simply because when I listen to music, my thoughts keep wandering, my attention is blurred, especially when I enjoy the music. Sometimes I pay attention to a detail here and there, but most of the time I'm kind of half-concentrated. So my way of listening is closer to a semi-conscious state. But, I admit that my case may not represent the majority. To conclude, I don't care so much about this particular study : it's an interesting one (no doubt), but it's just a study, after all. What _really_ puzzles me, is that it didn't result to a counter-study (originated from the AES or the ITU-V or anything), simply to show that it was wrong. There was no attempt whatsoever to prove the contrary. Funny... It's as if these organizations know some things that they don't want to say. At least this is the feeling I get. Maybe I'm wrong. -- Themis SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54077 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
