On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:51:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

In fact Atkinson presented zero independent evidence to support his
claims about infrasonic perception.

snip

Neither did you regarding the importance of 6hz in musical
programming.

Sure I did, in another post. I provided a reference showing the top 30
commercial recordings in terms of subsonic bass, as prepared by someone
else.

Actually it was in the very post that my post was a response to.
However, that doesn't say anything about the "importance" of the
frequency in question, just that there are 2 recordings that are
lower. ONLY two. And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency. A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptability. You dbt
guys are all the same. You pick and choose what you want to test. If
it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Of course, in your case, I don't think that you could even do such a
test in your own home, because there's nothing you've posted that
indicates that your system can get down to 6 hz (as measured from the
listening position.

You can't even prove that your system can reproduce such
a low frequency,

Delusions of omniscience noted. Weil you haven't got a clue about what I can
or cannot do, particularly with the assistance of my friends.

Since you think you know it all, why don't list my inventory of measurement
microphones, microphone preamps, digital audio interfaces, broadband analog
audio measuring devices, audio measurement software, and etc.

The fact that you *have* that equipment and *can* measure your system,
and yet you fail to produce evidence that your system can produce such
low frequencies as 6 hz in a *perceptable* manner, shows the world
that you are all talk and no proof.