bear wrote:
bob wrote:
---MIKE--- wrote:

I personally feel that short term listening tests are more reliable than
long term tests. This is because day to day differences can be caused
by many factors other than the equipment (temperature, pressure,
humidity, fatigue, etc.). There is one exception however. Is it
possible that some artifacts that are not really audible BUT are capable
of being sensed (extreme high frequency distortion for example) would
not be noticed on a quick switch but would cause listener fatigue over a
long term?


The first question you need to address is, If it's not audible, how is
it capable of being sensed? So far as I know, our ears do not respond
at all to ultrasonic frquencies, so what sensory organ is responsible
for sensing this and delivering some signal to the brain? Until you can
answer that, there's no point in speculating on what kind of test would
be capable of detecing it.

bob


There was a recent scientific paper published (within the past few
years) that showed a positive correlation between the presence of
ultrasonic infomation (part of the original recording, not distortion)
and the ability to detect it as a positive preference over the version
without the ultrasonics... are you unaware of this paper bob?

Not only am I aware of it, but--unlike you--I've actually read it. Its
weaknesses have been discussed ad nauseam here, so you can search the
archives if you're interested. But even the author of that paper
couldn't explain "how it is capable of being sensed," which you'd know
if you'd read it. He concedes that the ear isn't capable of detecting
signals in the ultrasonic range. That alone is sufficient reason to
take the paper's findings as tentative at best. The fact that it has
yet to be replicated is another.

bob
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth