Well, in the case of increased loudness and decreased dynamic range it's just your everyday free market capitalism at work
There's a reason why it is called 'loudness wars'.
jd
There's an interesting article on the subject from Mix magazine in 2005:
Dynamics are Dead, Long Live Dynamics-Mastering Engineers Debate Music’s Loudness Wars
Both Harman and Bose, who share a mega-rivalry, actually do quite a bit of good research work. They both also know what a market is and when they can be profitable.
So it really depends on what you consider to be the forefront.
I like loudspeakers that don't break, sound good if not stellar and are reasonably priced. I use a lot of them.
The market seems to agree with that.
Yes, I almost gag every time someone tells me how they bought the best... Bose!
But ain't their marketing (which also includes research) GREAT!
The Bose sound is quite off for my tastes, but some ppl seem to like the Bose sound. JBLs with a Blowtorch seems like a much better match.
Anywhere that is advancing audio playback. Seems to me that the lion's share of research now goes into multi-channel home theater systems.
.
Attachments
I was reading on a the hyperacusis forum about a study on inaudible frequencies hurting ears, and came across this in a web search.
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology
They could measure a difference in the electrical activity of the brain using an EEG when high frequencies above what we perceive as sound were present. Maybe audiophiles got it write after all.
Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect -- Oohashi et al. 83 (6): 3548 -- Journal of Neurophysiology
They could measure a difference in the electrical activity of the brain using an EEG when high frequencies above what we perceive as sound were present. Maybe audiophiles got it write after all.
Last edited:
I'm torn between two reactions:
1). Brain acitivity says nothing. There's lots of things that cause brain activity. Does that mean you HEAR all that? The color of the sunrise? The taste of scotch? A compliment from your friend?
2). I feel supported by this. It's very easy to measure a difference in electrical brain activity depending on whether the listener is looking at the amp brand label, or is drinking a good scotch or remembers his friends' opinion on the amp or is listening blind.
Objectivistst had it right after all
So I do both...
jd
Last edited:
I don't think anyone "determined" anything, but several alternate explanations which are plausible, within the bounds of well-established science, and were not considered by the authors have been proposed.
I'm torn between two reactions:
1). Brain acitivity says nothing. There's lots of things that cause brain activity. Does that mean you HEAR all that? The color of the sunrise? The taste of scotch? A compliment from your friend?
2). I feel supported by this. It's very easy to measure a difference in electrical brain activity depending on whether the listener is looking at the amp brand label, or is drinking a good scotch or remembers his friends' opinion on the amp or is listening blind.
Objectivistst had it right after all
So I do both...
jd
Hi Jan,
1) Yes, and there could also have been a woman streaking outside the window every time the high frequency component was added to the music.
I think it is more a matter of repeatability of the results, and they were looking at specific areas of the brain like the brain stem. They were looking for a neurophysiological response.
In the present study, therefore, we addressed this issue by using quantifiable and reproducible measurements of brain activity.
To avoid any influence by the order of presentation, the four different conditions were performed in random order across the subjects. After a 10-min rest, the same four conditions were repeated in reverse order. Neither the subjects nor the experimenters knew which conditions were being performed.
2) See 1).
People can pick apart just about any study. On the Hyperacusis Network board, people pick apart the blind studies done by Jastreboff and Hazell of 350+ patients, even though it was well thought out and very well documented. They say, "Oh it was fixed because it was done in their clinics and wasn't double blind."
Well, you can't do double blind when counseling is involved.
Sy says this has been talked to death so, I won't argue this anymore and it's not going to change any minds.
John
Ohh I don't doubt that; from my own on-off research in these things I found lots of cases where something in the physical world causes neural activity of which the subject is totally unaware. In fact, that's the basis for our life, isn't it. If we would be aware of all that goes on in our brains we would be overwhelmed and freeze up or something. Can you imagine an airliner pilot being aware of all the myriad signals going through all those miles of cabling in the plane he's flying?
No; what I don't see in this study is the link between brain activity and audible effects. That's the jumping to conclusions, unwarranted, or if you prefer, wishfull thinking.
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.