dave weil wrote:

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.

So what? The list is not inclusive of all recordings. Furthermore, the list
is far from being up-to-date.

And it doesn't speak to whether or not it makes any
difference in the perception of said frequency.

It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.


A list of recordings
with low frequency content doesn't speak to perceptibility.

It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.

You dbt guys are all the same.

Wrong. You've just demonstrated your ignorance of current and past
discussions of this issue. Some are published in the JAES, For example:

The Subjective Importance of Uniform Group Delay at Low Frequencies 297761
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Fincham, L. R.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 6 pp. 436·439; June 1985

Abstract: Analog recordings always have high group delay at low frequencies
due to the combined effects of all the components in the record/replay
chain, and in particular the analog recorder. Digital recorders now make it
practical to remove much of this group delay.

You pick and choose what you want to test.

So what's the option - not picking what we want to test?

LOL!

If it's one of your sacred cows, you don't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Horsefeathers. Much more likely: Been there, done that.

Also, the means for doing DBTs are readily available without any significant
out-of-pocket cost. All it takes to use them is time and brains. Sorry to
mention brains Weil, since you've obviously fried yours.


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.

Actually there is Weil, but you're too stupid to put 12 dB/octave up and 12
dB/octave down together. You're also to stupid to understand to resources
that are readily available to me that don't happen to be my personal
property even though I talk about them freely and some of them are in
well-known published resources like Audio Magazine.

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.

It is an accepted matter of fact that infrasonic information is reliably
perceptible.There are no problems with perceiving infrasonic frequencies,
period. Continue to demonstrate your willing ignorance of this fact as you
will, Weil.