2 ms·

Flawed methodology and their results have since failed to be reproduced [1]. There's a run-down of the major issues with it in post #156 here [2] (all verifiabl

by tmllyd 12y ago

Flawed methodology and their results have since failed to be reproduced [1]. There's a run-down of the major issues with it in post #156 here [2] (all verifiable by reading the research paper). There are also various studies which essentially show the opposite results ([3], [4]). [1] http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12375 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12375 [2] http://www.head-fi.org/t/266217/from-cd-to-sacd-how-much-of-difference/150 http://www.head-fi.org/t/266217/from-cd-to-sacd-how-much-of-... [3] http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 [4] http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13185 http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13185

tzs 12y ago
The run-down in post #156 at link is not very impressive. His first criticism is that the listeners knew the test was ABBA, with the listeners knowing that A and B are different. He thinks that is a flaw. It would be if the test were "can listeners tell the difference between A and B?". It's not when the test is "do listeners prefer A or B?". His second criticism is that there are slight differences in the spectra below 20 KHz. That's a legitimate criticism. Third, fourth, and fifth are ad hominem and similar bogus arguments. The sixth criticism is that if people do find they like the music with the high frequency components better it is because it is leading to more alpha waves and a relaxed state, which makes the people think they like the music more. He says that this isn't hearing and concludes that this somehow makes it irrelevant. This is ridiculous because it doesn't matter HOW it affects perception. If high frequencies somehow induce relaxation which makes us perceive the music more positively, presumably that would happen during a live concert. Hence, if we want the recorded music to be perceived as being as good as the live, we'd need those frequencies.

by tmllyd 12y ago

tzs 12y ago

The run-down in post #156 at link is not very impressive. His first criticism is that the listeners knew the test was ABBA, with the listeners knowing that A and B are different. He thinks that is a flaw. It would be if the test were "can listeners tell the difference between A and B?". It's not when the test is "do listeners prefer A or B?". His second criticism is that there are slight differences in the spectra below 20 KHz. That's a legitimate criticism. Third, fourth, and fifth are ad hominem and similar bogus arguments. The sixth criticism is that if people do find they like the music with the high frequency components better it is because it is leading to more alpha waves and a relaxed state, which makes the people think they like the music more. He says that this isn't hearing and concludes that this somehow makes it irrelevant. This is ridiculous because it doesn't matter HOW it affects perception. If high frequencies somehow induce relaxation which makes us perceive the music more positively, presumably that would happen during a live concert. Hence, if we want the recorded music to be perceived as being as good as the live, we'd need those frequencies.