In Reply to: Re: Which part is the shaky research and logic? posted by tlyyra on April 21, 2007 at 11:42:57:
"You shouldn't get arrogant about your own musical preferences; they are just that, nothing more, even though culturally largely (pre)determined."RG
The music for the test was chosen for testing audibility of high frequencies because it had an UNUSUAL amount of high frequency energy.That could bias the test.
Obviously with louder/more high frequencies, it's more likely the high frequencies would be audible.
As a result, the test results may not correlate to doing the same test using ANY other types of music without an unusual amount of high frequency energy.
My statement was about the music selections used and their potential correlation to any other music without so much high frequency content.
The test music is also unlikely to be in the collections of people visiting this web site, or is likely to be a very small percentage of the music collection.
YOUR decision to call me "arrogant" could only be based on your misunderstanding of the science involved. To choose music with an unusual amount of high frequency energy for a test of high frequency audibility cleary biases a test.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- How dare you misunderstand my post and then insult me for no reason! - Richard BassNut Greene 07:32:46 04/23/07 (4)
- Re: How dare you misunderstand my post and then insult me for no reason! - tlyyra 10:41:34 04/23/07 (3)
- The air is an excellent ultra-high-frequency absorber -- the data measured at 4 feet from a trumpet are meaningless ... - Richard BassNut Greene 09:22:38 04/24/07 (2)
- The issues, once more - tlyyra 03:04:57 04/25/07 (1)
- I responded to mkuller: "When people add supertweeters, they usually report an increase in sound quality " - Richard BassNut Greene 08:20:59 04/25/07 (0)