Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. Since you know he did so, that makes you the troll. Horsefeathers! 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. If anybody rejected anybody's findings Stephen, it is you who have rejected but not ever properly responded to mine about Oohashi. Oohashi's paper is widely revilied and discredited. |
#2
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oohashi's paper is widely revilied ...
"At least" that is neither as egregious nor prevalent as arnylied |
#3
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]()
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
![]() MINe 109 said: 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. Your peers or Arnii's? Krooger was talking about the Hive, you know. -- A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |