KVR Audio

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:04 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:
It is not, the article can not say anything about it cause
..cause you're inventing all this

Prove it!

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:08 pm

nollock wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_brain_stimulation

This is for therapeutic reasons and thus can be justified. When we make cell recordings for research it will be in monkeys, which brains resembles human beings at about 80% and it is often restricted to visual perception.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:09 pm

Hskovlund wrote:
tony tony chopper wrote:
It is not, the article can not say anything about it cause
..cause you're inventing all this

Prove it!

Now I remember you.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:15 pm

Prove it!

but you're the one claiming something new

nollock · Post by **nollock** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:17 pm

Hskovlund wrote: As stated many many times now, HEARING RANGE IS DETERMINED BY VERBAL REPORTS, thus you can not rule out the possibility of cell firings beyond, and that burden of evidence is on your side, because I do not try to establish it as a fact, but a posibility.

Actualy you said: "in fact they higly likely react to ultrasonics".

And as yet have provided no evidence for this claim.

If you want to rule out the possibility, YOU will have to prove it....

The study that this whole thread started if fairly convincing evidence. If there was some peceptible effect from these ultrasonic frequencys then people would have been able to pick out the 96k recordings.

If *you* want to doubt that evidence, then you have to provide counter evidence, not counter *possibilities* and conjecture.

I mean i could argue that my cochlea can pick up satelite TV, and because you have no evidence that it doesnt, that makes it a valid claim.

It's bullshit.

The burdon of proof is on *anyone* who wishes to make scientific claims.

The person who says "the burdon of proof is on you", is the person who has lost the argument and is retreating into pedantic quibling.

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:17 pm

zircon wrote:
The whole discussion is way beyond my point, cause that was only that high freqs outside a normal hearing range might have subliminal effects for an audiophile. If this is not the case, FINE, that just confirms my point that audiophilia is worth it.
Yet as this test shows, the audiophiles couldn't detect any effect. If there was one, even if it was subtle and they "felt" differently, they would have reliably picked out the 96khz music. But they didn't.

Not true. the test shows it can not be detected above chance. About 50% of responses were correct, but whether this effect is produced by chance, guessing or a difference in perception we do not know. This just means that we have no valid results from a statistical point of view. As stated I believe in the conclusion though but just do not want to leave out the possibility of hearing a difference at all by virtue of training or subliminal perception, how small that may be! Even if such difference should be detected I do doubt that this will have an impact on whether we like the music or not.

zeoy · Post by **zeoy** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:21 pm

Hskovlund wrote:About 50% of responses were correct, but whether this effect is produced by chance, guessing or a difference in perception we do not know. This just means that we have no valid results from a statistical point of view.

sorry, but it seems you don't know much about statistics. do you?

nollock · Post by **nollock** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:27 pm

Hskovlund wrote:As stated I believe in the conclusion though but just do not want to leave out the possibility of hearing a difference at all by virtue of training or subliminal perception, how small that may be! Even if such difference should be detected I do doubt that this will have an impact on whether we like the music or not.

Well you need to work on how you present you opinions because reading this thread I think 99.9% (that was an empircaly determined figure), of readers would have come to the conclusion that you are convinced that ultransonics are perceptible and of great importance.

If what you're saying is "Given the evidence there's a small posibility that ultrasonics may ocaisionaly have a tiny but perceptible effect. But as of yet there is little / no evidence to support the idea".

Then I think we can all agree. Although this being KvR, probably not

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:33 pm

nollock wrote:
Hskovlund wrote:
Actualy you said: "in fact they higly likely react to ultrasonics".

And as yet have provided no evidence for this claim.
True. A hypothesis bases on the fact the normally only the audible hearing range can be detected, thus there is no proof but neither a counter proof of this claim, therefore it remains an upon question. Got me there, should not have stated it like this.

The study that this whole thread started if fairly convincing evidence. If there was some peceptible effect from these ultrasonic frequencys then people would have been able to pick out the 96k recordings.....
Yes I believe in the results too, but the 50% of correct responses could be chance OR perception, so I will not rule out the possibility of percieving a difference if trained entirely.

If *you* want to doubt that evidence, then you have to provide counter evidence, not counter *possibilities* and conjecture......
No the test evidence I support (go read the entire post again if necessary). Seems to me that the subliminal thing did twist my point for many of you, that was only to leave a chance for the opponents, but not one that I would support myself in favour of 44,1/96 audiophilia.

I mean i could argue that my cochlea can pick up satelite TV, and because you have no evidence that it doesnt, that makes it a valid claim.

It's bullshit.

The burdon of proof is on *anyone* who wishes to make scientific claims.

The person who says "the burdon of proof is on you", is the person who has lost the argument and is retreating into pedantic bullshit.

Not true. Without evidence or counter evidence the hypothesis is open. It only becomes bullshit if it can not be tested at all and this one could actually, I would say. You can make experiments of classical conditioning to subliminal signals above hearing range for instance, but no such study has been conducted.

zircon · Post by **zircon** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:36 pm

If 96khz was reliably having an effect then the success rate of participants would be higher than 50% by a statistically significant margin. Period. There were enough participants and enough actual experiments conducted that any real effect, if anyone were perceiving it, would have been reflected in the data.

Arksun · Post by **Arksun** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:38 pm

Hskovlund wrote:
Yes I believe in the results too, but the 50% of correct responses could be chance OR perception, so I will not rule out the possibility of percieving a difference if trained entirely.

Horoscope and Tarot Card readers up and down the country are rejoycing at such logic.

KKeene · Post by **KKeene** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:57 pm

I would think source materials would matter. Since most music doesn't take advantage of ultrasonic information, little or none exist to hear within the recordings or to have any noticable effect. Acoustic music like classical or jazz is recorded with microphones whose upper limit is 22khz at best. And usually that's chopped off in mixing. And most people simply don't write and create ultrasonic music. So there's no point in this test, or perhaps, in using 96khz sampling rates.

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:59 pm

nollock wrote:If what you're saying is "Given the evidence there's a small posibility that ultrasonics may ocaisionaly have a tiny but perceptible effect. But as of yet there is little / no evidence to support the idea".

Then I think we can all agree. Although this being KvR, probably not

OK. Got carried away by the attacks, my fault. If you read my first post you will se that most of it support the conclusions of the test. the subliminal thing was a side track to leave something for the audiophiles...

Locus M · Post by **Locus M** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:02 pm

Arksun wrote:
Hskovlund wrote:
Yes I believe in the results too, but the 50% of correct responses could be chance OR perception, so I will not rule out the possibility of percieving a difference if trained entirely.

Horoscope and Tarot Card readers up and down the country are rejoycing at such logic.

No. There are many visual phenomena we can be trained to percieve even if we do not percieve them initially. Same could apply to hearing. Whether this include 44,1/ 96 difference is a question to be tested, therefore, train the subjects and see if the rate of correct responses increases above the level of chance.

Radek · Post by **Radek** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:22 pm

KKeene wrote:I would think source materials would matter. Since most music doesn't take advantage of ultrasonic information, little or none exist to hear within the recordings or to have any noticable effect. Acoustic music like classical or jazz is recorded with microphones whose upper limit is 22khz at best. And usually that's chopped off in mixing. And most people simply don't write and create ultrasonic music. So there's no point in this test, or perhaps, in using 96khz sampling rates.

"Ultrasonic music" - good one...

Should we discuss about benefits of using ultraviolet painting for a human perception then?

44.1 vs 96khz music - double blind study conducted...