"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:6asNb.56654$sv6.135911@attbi_s52...
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:69lNb.69026$na.40064@attbi_s04...
Harry Lavo wrote:

If there is one thing that the
Oohashi et al test established (without a doubt, documented in the
article)
is that *music* as opposed to sound triggers an *emotional* response
from
the brain that takes 20 secs or so to fully register and be
operational.

This is utter hogwash. IF Oohashi proved anything (and that is a huge
if),
it is only that ultrahigh frequency noise in combination with music
produces
some delayed reaction in the brain.

What the heck are you basing this on? So the utrasonic overtones in his
experiment were "noise".

Come on, Harry, he's recording on a one-bit system that uses noise-shaping.
Think about what the S/N ratio is on the 25kHz portion of that signal. Yes,
there are overtones. There is also a lot of noise.

The reaction was in the emotion-processing portion of the brain and
correlated statistically with higher qualitative music ratings. Not
exactly
the usual result of "noise" now, is it?

Ever heard of euphonic distortion? One of my original criticisms of Oohashi
was that he failed to investigate just what was in the "hypersonic sound" he
was investigating. That criticism (as well as all the others) stands. Based
on what Oohashi reports, we do not know if the phenomenon he claims to have
identified has anything to do with music at all.

I
and others believe that many of the more subtle effects involving
high-end
audio reproduction of music require this component to be present for
full
perception.

But, according to Oohashi himself, it is NOT present in any
consumer-grade
audio system. So, even if you were right about the weaknesses of
standard
DBTs, Oohashi provides no basis for believing that they are
insufficient
for
comparing consumer audio components.


I am not talking here simply about high-frequency overtones. Where did
you
get that idea?

Well, if you're not talking about high-frequency overtones, then Oohashi's
research offer you no support whatsoever, because that is the ONLY thing he
is talking about.

snip

But you don't think a test showing that proto-monadic evaluation
showed
statistically significant differences where simple dbt'ng did not,
would
not
get published.

Sure it would, if it happened. But I don't think any perceptual
psychologist
would waste his time trying, because a proto-monadic test is so
obviously
a
terrible way to test for audibility. (It produces too many false
negatives
to be a reliable test.) Even Oohashi didn't make that claim for it.


Again, from what basis you drawing this conclusion. They set up the test
*precisely* this way to better get at a definitive reult. That means he
doesn't make a claim for it?

But he doesn't claim that "hypersonic sound" is audible. (Look at the title
of his article!) In fact, he specifically concedes that it cannot affect the
nervous system in the same way that sub-20KHz sound does, and offers only
some vague speculation about what mechanism is at work here.

I find it amusing that you are criticizing standard DBTs, which have been
used repeatedly by scientists for decades in all sorts of ways (including
testing audibility of music), while holding up as a model a test which, as
far as you know, has only been used once in this field, and has no
verification whatsoever.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx