In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

Even though you can't hear these frequencies, they
add something subliminal to the way the music
affects you.

Interesting theory, but how are you going show that
this is right if there are no conscous affects?

Oohashi measured brain waves to do this.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

And if you believe that....

Why don't you dispute it then?

Been there, done that many times, Stephen should be
well-aware of the details, He's trolling, as usual.

You asked how one could show the affects of high
frequencies. Oohashi did that.

No he didn't. His work is greviously flawed, and I've explained how in
detail.

Brain-waves don't lie.

Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll.

Horsefeathers!

How ever could we measure how inaudible high frequency sounds affect the
listener? you ask. Since you know about a study titled "Inaudible
High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity" one could assume you'd make
that connection.

And you didn't dispute so much as reject the findings.

Wrong, I've deconstructed the paper and shown where the procedures were
grossly flawed.

Some tut-tutting about the possibility of intermodulation distortion is
about all I see.

If anybody rejected anybody's findings Stephen, it is you who have rejected
but not ever properly responded to mine about Oohashi.

You don't reject the findings? Still, if you have more than the IM
thing, repeat or cite it and I'll show that I understand your objections.

Oohashi's paper is widely revilied and discredited.

I'd be interested to see the peer-reviewed follow-up that "reviles and
discredits" the article.

Stephen