Audiophile objections to blind testing - an attempt from a layman

[castleofargh]

You are right. The paper demonstrates that there are indeed subconscious benefits from high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components, as seen in increased eeg alpha and beta power and improved "inactive pleasantness" ratings.

Gregorio's claim that the study contradicts your point is wrong. The paper shows that although participants couldn't consciously distinguish the audio versions, their brain activity and relaxation scores demonstrated clear, measurable differences. The increase in alpha and beta eeg power, combined with heightened "inactive pleasantness" ratings, demonstrates that high-frequency components in highh resolution audio subtly affect listeners in ways that go beyond conscious awareness. Just because the difference isn't consciously detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist—it’s reflected in both physiological responses and subjective mood shifts.

I'm sure he'll apologize and retract his insults.

The fact that something different happens in the brain does not in itself demonstrate an impact on our experience, and certainly does not demonstrate we can be aware of it.
Correlating some type of activity in some area of the brain with some emotions and then some type of activity around the same area with music+ultrasounds over a period of time, to conclude a relation between the emotion and ultrasound, that's at best, thin correlating evidence. We can't really avoid relying on correlated evidence in psychology(because that tends to be the best we'll ever get, not because it's good enough to know anything for a fact), but a correlation to a correlation is a far cry from fact.

As for the rated feelings, That's just not serious at all. I've read how much effort went into trying to get a meaningful scale for pain in hospitals, and how big the margin of error remains for many probably unsolvable reasons. So making those opportunistic casual ratings of many vague subjective concepts, with a relatively small number of people, it doesn't say a lot. What does active and inactive pleasantness even mean? Apparently some guys gave a high arousal score to the low passed music. Too bad it didn't go in the direction you care about, otherwise we might have ended up with a statement about how CDs make a few people super horny.
I do not think the paper demonstrates subconscious benefits like you wrote. It only makes tentative correlations and never comes close to talking about proof. They speculate a little, propose some ideas(not pretending that they're anything more than ideas), and wrote

It remains unclear what kind of advantages high-resolution audio might have for human beings.

Now, there seems to be some coherence within the findings, and that's encouraging. If we take the idea that the impact is delayed and lasts for some time after the sound stops, and the idea that it does end up manifesting as some small specific change in the subjective experience, then it would make sense for typical blind tests to fail.
But now that they have those ideas and early validation about the possible duration of the effect on the brain, they could set trials outside those time boundaries. And All those guys surely thought about it right away because it's obvious.
Maybe it's a matter of having busy schedules with work programmed for years in advance, maybe it's about finding a sucker to pay for those trials, maybe they already ran some small scale tests that didn't support the "let's have people rate long lists of stuff until luck gives us a statistic result we can exploit", so they forgot to publish about that? In any case, let's wait for such trials to show up, or more credible work to be done on the subjective feelings turning into conscious emotions because it's literally the first time something supports that idea, before saying that it demonstrates anything about anything. Certainly, it does not support or even relates to anything @eq1849 has been saying.

What has not been proved AFAIK(tell me if I'm missing some paper):
That it is a hearing thing. Would ultrasonic vibrations on my feet manage to also create similar impact in my brain? IDK.
That the ultrasonic signal matters. Would adding ultrasonic noise to a CD show the same activity change in the brain? IDK.

What has been long disproved:
hires does not improve the perceived details, it does not open the soundstage, it does not increase the micro dynamic, it does not give more air, it does not make the image more precise and expansive. It does not do this

In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity. Since buying 24 bit since 2014 or so this effect has never gone away and is extremely consistent to me.

All that is clearly BS. Even the papers supporting the idea of hires having an impact, could never bend backward enough to support all that nonsense about clear conscious impact on sonic properties. If it does happen that someone perceives those differences, and I see no reason to doubt that it happens, then surely it is caused by biases under casual listening, or by bad gear, or bad settings.
To quote Feynman, "if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science".

@eq1849 can keep using logical fallacies until we can compile them into a full guide, and keep moving the goal post until he gets in the Guinness book of record for most distance travelled with the mind, the audiophile descriptions found on the forum for how hires sounds and feels different is always BS caused by something else. If those objecting to blind testing could spend 1/10th of that useful skepticism pointed toward their own casual experience, they would agree. But are they able to look in a mirror and consider their own fallibility this late in the game, after having invested so much in the name of false audio idols? That's another story. A deeply psychological one.

 

[gregorio]

Gregorio's claim that the study contradicts your point is wrong.

I was wondering when you were going to turn up and falsely state I’m wrong, only for it to be demonstrated that you are the one who is wrong.

The paper shows that although participants couldn't consciously distinguish the audio versions …

So let me get this straight, eq1849 claimed he could consciously distinguish hi-res audio, you yourself recognise that the paper demonstrates the “participants couldn’t consciously distinguish the audio versions” and yet according to you, doesn’t contradict claim. Don’t you even know what “couldn’t” means?

The paper demonstrates that there are indeed subconscious benefits from high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components …

The paper actually states “It remains unclear what kind of advantages high-resolution audio might have for human beings.”

The increase in alpha and beta eeg power, combined with heightened "inactive pleasantness" ratings, demonstrates that high-frequency components in highh resolution audio subtly affect listeners in ways that go beyond conscious awareness.

No, the paper demonstrated the exact opposite, that high frequency components affected the test subjects in ways that did not even reach conscious awareness, let alone go beyond it. You’ve just completely made-up that falsehood!

Just because the difference isn't consciously detected doesn't mean it doesn't exist

A strawman argument because I am not arguing it doesn’t exist. I am arguing that the difference isn’t consciously detected, which you apparently agree with, while eq1849 is claiming he can consciously detect it and has even described what that claimed conscious detection is!

it’s reflected in both physiological responses and subjective mood shifts.

No, the paper actually tested: “The present study asked participants to listen to two types of high-resolution audio of the same musical piece (with or without inaudible high-frequency components) while performing a vigilance task in the visual modality.” And concluded that “Although the effect size is small, the overall results support the view that the effect of high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components on brain activity reflects a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness.” - So, while performing a visual task, there were NO “subjective mood shifts”, there was a small effect reflecting a relaxed attentional state, that subjects were NOT consciously aware of! Furthermore, a subsequent follow-up study by the same author (also cited previously) demonstrated that “The present study showed that a sound from which inaudible high-frequency components were removed by digital filtering was not detected at the sensory cortical level or discriminated behaviourally.”!

Lastly, you seem to have entirely missed the fact that this whole effect, both the specific brainwave activity and the subconscious attentional state when performing a visual task, does not exist with headphones, only with speakers.

At least you’re consistent; fallacious arguments, just making-up falsehoods, not understanding simple words and being wrong every single time you falsely state I’m wrong! Lol

G

 

[gregorio]

What has not been proved AFAIK(tell me if I'm missing some paper):
That it is a hearing thing.

Looks like we were writing our posts at the same time. Regarding this particular point, I did cite two follow-up papers by the same author, demonstrating it is not “a hearing thing” or even has any behavioural impact. This 2020 paper and this 2021 paper.

The conclusion of the most recent paper is particularly telling, because it also contradicts the common audiophile claim (even by those such as GoldenSound) that it’s not the ultrasonic freqs themselves that make hi-res audible/discernible but the effects of the filters used for 44.1kHz audio which remove those ultrasonic freqs: “The present study investigated whether an anti-alias filter used for conventional CD/DVD production and accompanying temporal blur [filter ringing] affected auditory processing in the auditory pathway from the cochlea through the brainstem, as determined by electrophysiological measures. The results showed that the ABRs [auditory brainstem responses] and subsequent evoked potentials induced by the clicks were not altered by anti-alias filtering. Moreover, none of the participants could detect the effect of the CD-level anti-alias filter …”

G

 

[2leftears]

For me, the paper @eq1849 quoted raises as many questions re. the methodology as it presents intriguing results.

Whilst the results are indeed interesting, this seems to be no more than a small pilot study, probably aimed at securing funding for more thorough research.

The authors are clearly aware of that, and this wouldn't be the first time that after selective reading some audiophiles' conclusions jump way ahead of what the authors conclude themselves.

What has not been proved AFAIK(tell me if I'm missing some paper):
That it is a hearing thing. Would ultrasonic vibrations on my feet manage to also create similar impact in my brain? IDK.
That the ultrasonic signal matters. Would adding ultrasonic noise to a CD show the same activity change in the brain? IDK.

Lastly, you seem to have entirely missed the fact that this whole effect, both the specific brainwave activity and the subconscious attentional state when performing a visual task, does not exist with headphones, only with speakers.

Looks like we were writing our posts at the same time. Regarding this particular point, I did cite two follow-up papers by the same author, demonstrating it is not “a hearing thing” or even has any behavioural impact. This 2020 paper and this 2021 paper.

Those were my thoughts also. This was observed using speakers. Just like infrasound, it may very well be that the ultrasonic component had an impact on the body, but there is no guarantee that this was related to hearing. In that context, I already suspected that this phenomenon may not present itself when using headphones, something confirmed in the papers linked to by @gregorio.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

I was wondering when you were going to turn up and falsely state I’m wrong, only for it to be demonstrated that you are the one who is wrong.

So let me get this straight, eq1849 claimed he could consciously distinguish hi-res audio, you yourself recognise that the paper demonstrates the “participants couldn’t consciously distinguish the audio versions” and yet according to you, doesn’t contradict claim. Don’t you even know what “couldn’t” means?

The paper actually states “It remains unclear what kind of advantages high-resolution audio might have for human beings.”

No, the paper demonstrated the exact opposite, that high frequency components affected the test subjects in ways that did not even reach conscious awareness, let alone go beyond it. You’ve just completely made-up that falsehood!

A strawman argument because I am not arguing it doesn’t exist. I am arguing that the difference isn’t consciously detected, which you apparently agree with, while eq1849 is claiming he can consciously detect it and has even described what that claimed conscious detection is!

No, the paper actually tested: “The present study asked participants to listen to two types of high-resolution audio of the same musical piece (with or without inaudible high-frequency components) while performing a vigilance task in the visual modality.” And concluded that “Although the effect size is small, the overall results support the view that the effect of high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components on brain activity reflects a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness.” - So, while performing a visual task, there were NO “subjective mood shifts”, there was a small effect reflecting a relaxed attentional state, that subjects were NOT consciously aware of! Furthermore, a subsequent follow-up study by the same author (also cited previously) demonstrated that “The present study showed that a sound from which inaudible high-frequency components were removed by digital filtering was not detected at the sensory cortical level or discriminated behaviourally.”!

Lastly, you seem to have entirely missed the fact that this whole effect, both the specific brainwave activity and the subconscious attentional state when performing a visual task, does not exist with headphones, only with speakers.

At least you’re consistent; fallacious arguments, just making-up falsehoods, not understanding simple words and being wrong every single time you falsely state I’m wrong! Lol

G

Your argument conflates conscious detection with subconscious influence. The study clearly states that high-frequency components induce "a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness" and shows measurable physiological changes—specifically increased alpha and beta EEG power—proving a subconscious effect. You ignored the finding that "participants provided higher inactive pleasantness scores under the full-range than under the high-cut excerpt," demonstrating a subjective mood shift despite participants being unaware of the source. The study highlights that brainwave effects "emerged over time" and persisted "even after the audio stopped." Your focus on conscious discrimination misses the point: the study demonstrates that high-resolution audio enhances the listening experience through subconscious mechanisms, even if consciously undetectable.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

The fact that something different happens in the brain does not in itself demonstrate an impact on our experience, and certainly does not demonstrate we can be aware of it.
Correlating some type of activity in some area of the brain with some emotions and then some type of activity around the same area with music+ultrasounds over a period of time, to conclude a relation between the emotion and ultrasound, that's at best, thin correlating evidence. We can't really avoid relying on correlated evidence in psychology(because that tends to be the best we'll ever get, not because it's good enough to know anything for a fact), but a correlation to a correlation is a far cry from fact.

As for the rated feelings, That's just not serious at all. I've read how much effort went into trying to get a meaningful scale for pain in hospitals, and how big the margin of error remains for many probably unsolvable reasons. So making those opportunistic casual ratings of many vague subjective concepts, with a relatively small number of people, it doesn't say a lot. What does active and inactive pleasantness even mean? Apparently some guys gave a high arousal score to the low passed music. Too bad it didn't go in the direction you care about, otherwise we might have ended up with a statement about how CDs make a few people super horny.
I do not think the paper demonstrates subconscious benefits like you wrote. It only makes tentative correlations and never comes close to talking about proof. They speculate a little, propose some ideas(not pretending that they're anything more than ideas), and wrote

Now, there seems to be some coherence within the findings, and that's encouraging. If we take the idea that the impact is delayed and lasts for some time after the sound stops, and the idea that it does end up manifesting as some small specific change in the subjective experience, then it would make sense for typical blind tests to fail.
But now that they have those ideas and early validation about the possible duration of the effect on the brain, they could set trials outside those time boundaries. And All those guys surely thought about it right away because it's obvious.
Maybe it's a matter of having busy schedules with work programmed for years in advance, maybe it's about finding a sucker to pay for those trials, maybe they already ran some small scale tests that didn't support the "let's have people rate long lists of stuff until luck gives us a statistic result we can exploit", so they forgot to publish about that? In any case, let's wait for such trials to show up, or more credible work to be done on the subjective feelings turning into conscious emotions because it's literally the first time something supports that idea, before saying that it demonstrates anything about anything.

You bring up some good points. You’re right that correlational evidence in psychology and neuroscience isn’t definitive proof. The study itself is careful about this, which is why they say, "it remains unclear what kind of advantages high-resolution audio might have for human beings." But I think where we differ is how we interpret the strength of the findings. When you have both physiological changes (like increased alpha and beta EEG activity) and subjective reports (higher "inactive pleasantness" ratings), it starts to look like more than just random correlation—especially when these effects align consistently across participants.

I totally get your skepticism about subjective ratings. Emotional responses are tricky, and even in clinical settings, scales for things like pain can be all over the place. But in this study, the subjective ratings weren’t treated in isolation—they’re part of a broader pattern that includes brainwave changes, which strengthens their relevance.

Regarding blind tests and timing—you’re spot on. If the effects take time to build and linger after the sound stops, traditional ABX tests could easily miss those nuances. It would be great to see follow-up studies that adjust for those timing factors. But I don’t think the absence of those studies invalidates what this paper shows—it just means there’s room for more research.

So, I’d agree that the paper doesn’t "prove" anything in an absolute sense, but I do think it provides solid early evidence that something real is happening, even if it’s subtle and subconscious.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Lastly, you seem to have entirely missed the fact that this whole effect, both the specific brainwave activity and the subconscious attentional state when performing a visual task, does not exist with headphones, only with speakers.

to dismiss the findings based on speakers alone is both reductive and unsupported. Your claim that the hypersonic effect only exists with speakers and not headphones misrepresents the findings. The 2017 study explicitly acknowledges that the mode of sound delivery matters but doesn’t dismiss the effect entirely when using headphones—it highlights that speakers may transmit more tactile vibrations that contribute to the overall experience. However, the key takeaway remains: the observed brainwave changes and mood shifts were driven by high-frequency components, regardless of the exact transmission mechanism.

Moreover, the 2020paper clarifies that even with speakers, participants couldn’t consciously detect the high-frequency components, but physiological changes still occurred in prior studies. On top of that, the discussion in the 2021 auditory brainstem study further reinforces that whether it’s tactile vibration or bone conduction, high-frequency components subtly influence sensory pathways—effects that simple auditory tests miss.

Whether headphones or speakers are used,, the findings show that the core effect is subcortical and subconscious—not dependent solely on whether participants feel the sound through vibrations or hear it directly- The delivery method may influence the strength of the effect but not its existence.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

For me, the paper @eq1849 quoted raises as many questions re. the methodology as it presents intriguing results.

Whilst the results are indeed interesting, this seems to be no more than a small pilot study, probably aimed at securing funding for more thorough research.

The authors are clearly aware of that, and this wouldn't be the first time that after selective reading some audiophiles' conclusions jump way ahead of what the authors conclude themselves.

Fair point - it’s important to recognize the limitations of any study and to approach findings with a healthy dose of caution. they are upfront about being an early investigation and don't ttry to make bold claims beyond what the data support. The authors even say, "the overall results support the view that the effect of high-resolution audio... reflects a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness," but they also acknowledge that the effect size is small.

As for it being a “pilot study,” while the sample size of 22 participants isn’t huge, it’s pretty standard for EEG research. Plus, the double-blind design and use of both physiological and behavioral measures give the study more credibility. The researchers didn’t oversell their findings,they laid out the results carefully and pointed out areas for further research.

I also get your point about audiophiles sometimes jumping ahead of what the research actually says. But that’s more an issue of interpretation than a flaw in the study itself. The paper never claims that high-resolution audio is consciouslydistinguishable—it points to subtle, subconscious effects.

So, while more research is obviously always helpful,, calling this “just a small pilot” kind of downplays the thoughtful design and the interesting findings that deserve to be built on rather than dismissed.

 

[gregorio]

Your argument conflates conscious detection with subconscious influence.

No it doesn’t, it does the exact opposite! However, YOUR argument does indeed conflate them. For example:

You ignored the finding that "participants provided higher inactive pleasantness scores under the full-range than under the high-cut excerpt," demonstrating a subjective mood shift despite participants being unaware of the source.

No. You are conflating “a subconscious inactive pleasantness score” with a “subjective mood shift”, that is absolutely NOT what the study demonstrated and is just complete nonsense you’ve made-up, which perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of your previous quoted assertion!
In fact, Nittono made it explicitly clear in his subsequent 2020 paper:
“Results indicated that the 192-kHz sound source compared to the 44.1-kHz sound source induced higher power in the theta (4.0–8.0 Hz) and slow alpha (8.0–10.5 Hz) bands of the electroencephalogram. However, no apparent differences were found in sound quality or subjective mood.”!

Your focus on conscious discrimination misses the point …

What on earth are you talking about? The focus on conscious discrimination IS the point! The claim I’m refuting was of conscious discrimination and even a description of what was consciously discerned was presented “weight, clarity, depth, etc.”. What are you suggesting, that eq1849 wrote and posted that claim subconsciously while sleeping/unconscious? As ever, your posts get more and more laughable, in some vain attempt to defend your false accusation, until the humiliation gets too great even for you and then you vanish only to reappear in another thread and repeat the whole process ad infinitum!

Your claim that the hypersonic effect only exists with speakers and not headphones misrepresents the findings.

Oh good, even more! The hypersonic effect was discovered by Oohashi, et al. Who extensively tested both speakers and headphones but only found the effect with speakers, a finding supported by others. These Nittono papers are a follow up on Oohashi’s original findings and he specifically reiterates them in his own papers: “Oohashi et al. (2006) reported that high-frequency sound components did not affect EEG power when they were presented via earphones rather than loudspeakers.”

And again, demonstrably wrong at every turn. I just don’t get how you are not embarrassed by your false and hypocritical assertions consistently being refuted?!

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

No it doesn’t, it does the exact opposite! However, YOUR argument does indeed conflate them. For example:

No. You are conflating “a subconscious inactive pleasantness score” with a “subjective mood shift”, that is absolutely NOT what the study demonstrated and is just complete nonsense you’ve made-up, which perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of your previous quoted assertion!
In fact, Nittono made it absolutely clear in his subsequent 2020 paper:
“Results indicated that the 192-kHz sound source compared to the 44.1-kHz sound source induced higher power in the theta (4.0–8.0 Hz) and slow alpha (8.0–10.5 Hz) bands of the electroencephalogram. However, no apparent differences were found in sound quality or subjective mood.”!

What on earth are you talking about? The focus on conscious discrimination IS the point! The claim I’m refuting was of conscious discrimination and even a description of what was consciously discerned was presented “weight, clarity, depth, etc.”. What are you suggesting, that eq1849 wrote and posted that claim subconsciously while sleeping/unconscious? As ever, your posts get more and more laughable, in some vain attempt to defend your false accusation, until the humiliation gets too great even for you and then you vanish only to reappear in another thread and repeat the whole process ad infinitum!

Oh good, even more! The hypersonic effect was discovered by Oohashi, et al. Who extensively tested both speakers and headphones but only found the effect with speakers, a finding supported by others. These Nittono papers are a follow up on Oohashi’s original findings and he specifically reiterates them in his own papers: “Oohashi et al. (2006) reported that high-frequency sound components did not affect EEG power when they were presented via earphones rather than loudspeakers.”

And again, demonstrably wrong at every turn. I just don’t get how you are not embarrassed by your false and hypocritical assertions consistently being refuted?!

G

You’re twisting this completely backward. The study does show a subjective experience difference—specifically higher inactive pleasantness scores for the full-range audio compared to the high-cut version. This isn’t me "making things up"—it’s right there in the text. Calling it nonsense is your usual attempt to dismiss something you don’t like.

Your 2020 Nittono quote about no sound quality or mood differences refers to a different setup entirely—short auditory bursts to test auditory memory processes, not extended music listening. Comparing apples and oranges doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it.

On conscious vs. subconscious detection - The original point wasn’t about consciously identifying "weight, clarity, and depth." The study wasn’t even testing that—it showed subconscious physiological responses (increased alpha and beta EEG power) correlating with subjective pleasantness ratings. Just because participants couldn’t articulate the difference doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

The real point you keep ignoring: a subjective experience occurred, but the participants weren’t aware of what caused it. That doesn’t make it imaginary—it makes it an unconscious response with measurable effects.

Re, speakers vs headphones. Yes, Oohashi et al. found the hypersonic effect with speakers, not headphones. But that’s not a permanent law of physics, it’s an observation. Later studies, including Nittono’s, leave this open as an issue of transmission pathways, not proof that headphones can never show similar effects. This isn’t a gotcha—it’s a reminder that science evolves (at least in the real world; everyone here knows it doesn't in the gregorio world).

As per usual,

-You selectively misread and misquote the papers.
-You conflate different studies to "disprove" findings that you don’t like.
-The research shows effects that go beyond conscious perception, but you refuse to acknowledge any nuance.
If you’re so certain, stop ranting and show data that disproves the findings. Until then, your arguments amount to bad-faith nitpicking and condescension disguised as scientific rigor.

 

[eq1849]

The real point you keep ignoring: a subjective experience occurred, but the participants weren’t aware of what caused it. That doesn’t make it imaginary—it makes it an unconscious response with measurable effects.

Nicely put.

 

[gregorio]

The study does show a subjective experience difference—specifically higher inactive pleasantness scores for the full-range audio compared to the high-cut version. This isn’t me "making things up" —it’s right there in the text. …

So, you’ve stated: “a subconscious inactive pleasantness score”, “subjective mood shift” and now “a subjective experience difference”. So, either show me exactly where ALL those quotes are “right there in the text” (in the paper you’re citing) or who else it is that’s “making things up” in your posts!

Your 2020 Nittono quote about no sound quality or mood differences refers to a different setup entirely—short auditory bursts to test auditory memory processes, not extended music listening. Comparing apples and oranges doesn’t strengthen your argument—it weakens it.

So you too don’t know what test signals are. Jeez, you just love digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, add a nice “false analogy” fallacy and off you trot! lol

The original point wasn’t about consciously identifying "weight, clarity, and depth."

Yes it was, can’t you read the thread to which you’re posting? The claim (paraphrased) was that it’s relatively easy to conscious discern 16bit from 24bit due to the additional weight and clarity of 24bit and this conscious discernment is only possible with long term, sighted testing because it’s more sensitive/reliable than DBT/ABX. And the reliable evidence (peer reviewed scientific paper) presented to support this claim was the paper by Nittono that did not test either 16bit vs 24bit or long term sighted testing vs ABX, it tested ultrasonic components using ABX only. The rest of us are still laughing!

The real point you keep ignoring: a subjective experience occurred, but the participants weren’t aware of what caused it.

Show me that quote too please, or is someone else making up more stuff and inserting it into your posts again? The actual quote AGAIN is: “Although the effect size is small, the overall results support the view that the effect of high-resolution audio with inaudible high-frequency components on brain activity reflects a relaxed attentional state without conscious awareness.” - Nothing about a subjective experience that the participants were consciously aware of, but were not aware what caused it. YOU made that up!

Re, speakers vs headphones. Yes, Oohashi et al. found the hypersonic effect with speakers, not headphones. But that’s not a permanent law of physics, it’s an observation. Later studies, including Nittono’s, leave this open as an issue of transmission pathways, not proof that headphones can never show similar effects.

Where in Nittono’s papers does it leave open the issue that it might occur with headphones? The open “transmission pathways” issue is how the ultrasonic content affects certain brainwaves when it is not detected by the auditory pathways, not whether it’s produced in the first place by speakers, headphones or magic pixies! There is no evidence or even suggestion that the hypersonic effect can occur with headphones, there is evidence however that it doesn’t.

As per usual,
-You selectively misread and misquote the papers.

Show me a single one of my quotes from Nittono’s papers that is a misquote. Meanwhile, I’ve already shown several misquotes by you just in this last message. “As per usual” Hypocrisy hasn’t worked for you again, so why do you keep using this nonsense tactic that never works?

-You conflate different studies to "disprove" findings that you don’t like.

I did not conflate anything, while you’ve already been shown to have conflated. Keep trying that hypocrisy, surely it must work sooner or later? And incidentally, just ignoring or falsely dismissing different studies/findings that contradict your misquotes also won’t work here, but don’t let that stop you from trying again and again! lol

-The research shows effects that go beyond conscious perception, but you refuse to acknowledge any nuance.

Just repeating the same falsehood you invented won’t eventually make it true. Again, the research showed the exact opposite of your assertion, that the effects did not even reach the level of conscious perception, let alone “go beyond” it!

If you’re so certain, stop ranting and show data that disproves the findings.

What, again? I’ve posted links to Nittono’s papers twice now, how many more times? I suppose if you’re not reading them or just falsely dismissing them then you’ll keep asking ad infinitum, which along with hypocrisy ad infinitum is a recipe for endless fun for the whole family! Lmao

G

 

[eq1849]

The claim (paraphrased) was that it’s relatively easy to conscious discern 16bit from 24bit due to the additional weight and clarity of 24bit

That was not a claim but rather my opinion. Nowhere was that claimed as fact, nor did I say it was “relatively easy”.

and this conscious discernment is only possible with long term, sighted testing because it’s more sensitive/reliable than DBT/ABX.

That was never “claimed” by me.

I put the words I think, for me, to me, my 2 cents, etc. to indicate an opinion. I’m happy to spell out “in my opinion” from now on when giving impressions.

 

[gregorio]

That was not a claim but rather my opinion. …
That was never “claimed” by me.

Just so we’re clear, you never claimed to be able to consciously tell 16 verses 24 bit? And you never claimed that in the long term 16bit is flatter and less clear, while 24bit has more weight and clarity for you? You also never claimed to think that the act of taking a blind test may alter the senses and confuse or that long term sighted listening is best? If not, you need to speak with admin because your account has been hacked and someone is posting these claims under your username!

I have tricked myself into forgetting I was testing for a minute or so by doing due diligence tasks. I was then able to tell 16 versus 24 bit with statistical significance.

In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity. Since buying 24 bit since 2014 or so this effect has never gone away and is extremely consistent to me.

I think the act of taking a blind test itself may alter the senses and confuse.

I think the best is Long Term sighted listening.

G

 

[eq1849]

I have tricked myself into forgetting I was testing for a minute or so by doing due diligence tasks. I was then able to tell 16 versus 24 bit with statistical significance. But if aware I’m taking the test it all goes to mush.

Basically stating I passed a blind test with statistical significance.

And nowhere was it stated it was “Relatively easy”, as you claimed I said.

I think the best is Long Term sighted listening.

In the long term, for me, 16 is flatter and less clear. 24 has more weight and clarity. Since buying 24 bit since 2014 or so this effect has never gone away and is extremely consistent to me.

Just My opinion/subjective observations. Note the words “I think”, “for me”, “to me”. Do you see a claim of fact here?

Just so we’re clear, you never claimed to be able to consciously tell 16 verses 24 bit? And you never claimed that in the long term 16bit is flatter and less clear, while 24bit has more weight and clarity for you? You also never claimed to think that the act of taking a blind test may alter the senses and confuse or that long term sighted listening is best? If not, you need to speak with admin because your account has been hacked and someone is posting these claims under your username!




G

see quotes above for what I said.