[gregorio]

2- I think the EEG studies looking directly at the brain's activity levels are far more convincing and objective than subjective blind listening tests.

Have you actually read those EEG studies? If you had, then you would notice that they actually corroborate the double blind test results. How does corroborating objective evidence make blind listening tests less convincing rather than even more convincing?

In short, EEG studies have proven that certain brainwave patterns are affected by ultrasonic sound. However, they also demonstrated that the test subjects’ auditory cortex was not stimulated by the ultrasound, that there were no physiological or emotional changes in response to the change in brain activity and the test subjects were unaware of any differences/changes. In other words, they completely corroborate the results of controlled listening tests of no discernible differences.

G

 

[old tech]

I had an ultrasound test on my kidneys the other day. I couldn't hear it or feel it (apart from the cold gel). I suppose I don't have superman hearing.

 

[mbphotox]

but the EEG certainly showed your response, no?

 

[redrol]

This Fing cable crap has been perpetuated on this site forever. It's a scam. The fact that this is allowed without batting an eye should show you that this is an advertising site run by companies.

 

[eq1849]

Have you actually read those EEG studies? If you had, then you would notice that they actually corroborate the double blind test results. How does corroborating objective evidence make blind listening tests less convincing rather than even more convincing?

In short, EEG studies have proven that certain brainwave patterns are affected by ultrasonic sound. However, they also demonstrated that the test subjects’ auditory cortex was not stimulated by the ultrasound, that there were no physiological or emotional changes in response to the change in brain activity and the test subjects were unaware of any differences/changes. In other words, they completely corroborate the results of controlled listening tests of no discernible differences.

G

Per the research:
-Listener EEG increased when listening to high res over CD on the EEG studies.
-Despite that, listeners cannot pick out high res versus CD on blind listening tests, suggesting the benefits of high res are at the subconscious level.
-The increase in EEG kicked in after several minutes of listening, not instantaneously.

To your second point, the authors call for more research in the closing as to the question the WHY of the increase in EEG:

"Fourth, the present study did not manipulate the sampling frequency and the bit depth of digital audio. High-resolution audio is characterized not only by the capability of reproducing inaudible high-frequency components but also by more accurate sampling and quantization (i.e., a higher sampling frequency and a greater bit depth) as compared with low-resolution audio. If the naturalness derived by a closer replication of real sounds affects EEG activities, the sampling frequency and the bit depth would do too regardless of whether the real sounds feature high-frequency components. This idea would be worth examining in future research."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5285336/#:~:text=It has been shown that EEG alpha-band (8–,et al., 2003a).

 

[redrol]

How can you be sure the transducer is replaying stuff over say 15,000hz? Is this tested?

"Sounds were amplified using AI-501DA (TEAC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) controlled by dedicated software on a laptop PC. Two loudspeakers with high-frequency tweeters (PM1; Bowers & Wilkins, Worthing, England"

Yeah, these speakers cant extend more than normal speakers. I was hoping for some fancy high frequency equipment.

 

[eq1849]

How can you be sure the transducer is replaying stuff over say 15,000hz? Is this tested?

"Sounds were amplified using AI-501DA (TEAC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) controlled by dedicated software on a laptop PC. Two loudspeakers with high-frequency tweeters (PM1; Bowers & Wilkins, Worthing, England"

Yeah, these speakers cant extend more than normal speakers. I was hoping for some fancy high frequency equipment.

There is yet another EEG study, the author introduces greater than 22.05khz noise bursts without EEG effects.

So taking all of it together, I would suspect the EEG benefits are likely due to increased information and accuracy across the audible frequencies.

 

[redrol]

ok fair enough. Still brain scans arn't the same as my emotions so... what does this prove if anything?

 

[danadam]

the authors call for more research

I would call for including a dead salmon in the study

If the naturalness derived by a closer replication of real sounds affects EEG activities, the sampling frequency and the bit depth would do too

Would it? IMO that's rather questionable implication.

 

[Ryokan]

So we need EEG studies to tell us what we can't hear now?

 

[gregorio]

but the EEG certainly showed your response, no?

How did I know you were quoting the Oohashi paper? Oohashi has been widely debunked, for more than one reason as has often been “a straw” audiophiles grasp when trying to support some of the audiophile myths! However, his results of an effect on brainwave patterns has been replicated, so that’s not in question. To answer your question: It doesn’t show “your response” it shows your brain’s response. That may sound like a purely semantic difference but it’s a very significant difference in the context of discerning a difference if for example (as is actually the case) it is ONLY your brain’s response and you have no direct or even indirect awareness of it.

High-resolution audio is characterized not only by the capability of reproducing inaudible high-frequency components but also by more accurate sampling and quantization (i.e., a higher sampling frequency and a greater bit depth)

This is one of the reasons it’s been debunked, this assertion is false. In this and other papers Oohashi demonstrates a quite limited/incorrect understanding of digital audio. That’s not entirely surprising as his PhD is in an unrelated field (Agriculture if I recall correctly).

To your second point, the authors call for more research in the closing as to the question the WHY of the increase in EEG

And there has been more research, still more is required to nail down the actual mechanism of the EEG increase but quite a bit has been done which shed light on what the actual response is.

I recommend this paper (“High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory”) for three reasons: Firstly, it gives a very good overview of past papers/research, including the two you’ve mentioned and others. Secondly, it advances the scientific knowledge using a very robust objective methodology and lastly, it’s very comprehensive, as it effectively goes beyond only the auditory cortex and also investigates psychophysiological and behavioural responses, as well as incorporating the response of filter ringing.

So taking all of it together, I would suspect the EEG benefits are likely due to increased information and accuracy across the audible frequencies.

Except you haven’t taken all of it together! You’ve only taken the Oohashi paper (who is at least partially discredited) and one other paper, so certainly “not all of it together”. And then you’ve suspected “EEG benefits”, what EEG benefits and what evidence do you have to suspect any? The evidence indicates no difference, let alone beneficial differences. And lastly, there is no increased information or accuracy within the audible spectrum. All the differences are beyond the thresholds of audibility, either above the threshold of frequency audibility or below the digital noise floor and threshold of level audibility.

Taking it all together, the studies corroborate the double blind listening test results!

G

 

[bigshot]

So taking all of it together, I would suspect the EEG benefits are likely due to increased information and accuracy across the audible frequencies.

There's no evidence of "benefits" at all, much less increased accuracy in the audible band. You're completely projecting that conclusion on a test study that didn't indicate anything of the sort. All it showed was that a difference in brain waves could be measured. It didn't show any relationship between those brain waves and hearing fidelity nor subjective music appreciation.

However you could point to super audible frequencies being used as sonic weapons and theorize that the perception of ultrasonic frequencies isn't at all beneficial. The symptoms of exposure to loud high frequencies are headaches and dizziness, which definitely might explain why there was a reaction in brain waves.

 

[eq1849]

How did I know you were quoting the Oohashi paper? Oohashi has been widely debunked, for more than one reason as has often been “a straw” audiophiles grasp when trying to support some of the audiophile myths! However, his results of an effect on brainwave patterns has been replicated, so that’s not in question. To answer your question: It doesn’t show “your response” it shows your brain’s response. That may sound like a purely semantic difference but it’s a very significant difference in the context of discerning a difference if for example (as is actually the case) it is ONLY your brain’s response and you have no direct or even indirect awareness of it.

This is one of the reasons it’s been debunked, this assertion is false. In this and other papers Oohashi demonstrates a quite limited/incorrect understanding of digital audio. That’s not entirely surprising as his PhD is in an unrelated field (Agriculture if I recall correctly).

And there has been more research, still more is required to nail down the actual mechanism of the EEG increase but quite a bit has been done which shed light on what the actual response is.

I recommend this paper (“High-frequency sound components of high-resolution audio are not detected in auditory sensory memory”) for three reasons: Firstly, it gives a very good overview of past papers/research, including the two you’ve mentioned and others. Secondly, it advances the scientific knowledge using a very robust objective methodology and lastly, it’s very comprehensive, as it effectively goes beyond only the auditory cortex and also investigates psychophysiological and behavioural responses, as well as incorporating the response of filter ringing.

Except you haven’t taken all of it together! You’ve only taken the Oohashi paper (who is at least partially discredited) and one other paper, so certainly “not all of it together”. And then you’ve suspected “EEG benefits”, what EEG benefits and what evidence do you have to suspect any? The evidence indicates no difference, let alone beneficial differences. And lastly, there is no increased information or accuracy within the audible spectrum. All the differences are beyond the thresholds of audibility, either above the threshold of frequency audibility or below the digital noise floor and threshold of level audibility.

Taking it all together, the studies corroborate the double blind listening test results!

G

The authors of the paper I linked are Ryuma Kuribayashi and Hiroshi Nittono. Why are you talking about the Oohashi research?

​

High-Resolution Audio with Inaudible High-Frequency Components Induces a Relaxed Attentional State without Conscious Awareness​

Ryuma Kuribayashi and Hiroshi Nittono*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar... shown that EEG alpha-band (8–,et al., 2003a).

 

[gregorio]

Why are you talking about the Oohashi research?

Because the highlighted section in your link was in referencing the Oohashi paper.

Why are you not talking about the more recent and comprehensive Nittono paper I referenced previously if you’re “taking all of it together” and which covers the earlier point/quote of more research required?

G

 

[Davesrose]

The authors of the paper I linked are Ryuma Kuribayashi and Hiroshi Nittono. Why are you talking about the Oohashi research?

Might be because Oohashi is referenced 15 times in this paper, which is a series of surveys for a PhD paper from a psychologist graduate program. And I think Ryuma Kuribayahsi might be an audio designer (there's two papers under his name and not Ryosuke Kuribayashi: who has papers on pharmaceuticals).