[eq1849]

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

If I recall Oohashi showed that >22.05khz short noise bursts produced no effects on EEG.

The Ryuma Kuribayashi and Hiroshi Nittono* research as I recall found that EEG increased when listening to high res music over CD, but in blind listening listeners failed to discriminate which was high res versus CD, with the EEG effects seen after 150-200 seconds of listening.


If you provide a link I'm happy to take a look at the other Nittono paper.

 

[Benesyed]

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).

Study would need to reproduced but at the very least there is no conscious difference. If there is a brain wave difference, there's no reason to believe that this is desirable. Acoustically or otherwise.

Also just to put things in perspective, EEG is a very very crude medium. We use them in neurology/neurosurgery as a broad localizer of activity and then do invasive testing with depth electrodes or subdural grids to get a better picture.

 

[gregorio]

If I recall Oohashi showed that >22.05khz short noise bursts produced no effects on EEG.

Nope, Oohashi showed that >22kHz did produce an effect on EEG, and named it the “hypersonic effect”. Although rather strangely, it was only evident with speakers (rather than headphones).

The Ryuma Kuribayashi and Hiroshi Nittono* research as I recall found that EEG increased when listening to high res music over CD, but in blind listening listeners failed to discriminate which was high res versus CD

Right, which was explained in Nittono’s later/follow up paper to which I linked. Namely, blind listening test subjects failed to discriminate because there was nothing to discriminate, neither filter ringing or content >22kHz even registered in the auditory cortex nor did it elicit any behavioural or psychophysical response! Therefore, the accuracy of the blind tests (in not discriminating difference) was corroborated.

If you provide a link I'm happy to take a look at the other Nittono paper.

I provided it in the reply to which you responded (post #16,991) and you posted the link yourself, within your “quote”. But here it is again:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78889-9

G

 

[eq1849]

.

 

[old tech]

but the EEG certainly showed your response, no?

Damn, I should have asked for one to be done at the same time and posted the results here.

 

[Ryokan]

Could this have something to do with the EEG studies?

subliminal
/səˈblɪmɪnl/

1. (of a stimulus or mental process) below the threshold of sensation or consciousness; perceived by or affecting someone's mind without their being aware of it.

 

[sander99]

 

[eq1849]

Nope, Oohashi showed that >22kHz did produce an effect on EEG, and named it the “hypersonic effect”. Although rather strangely, it was only evident with speakers (rather than headphones).

Right, which was explained in Nittono’s later/follow up paper to which I linked. Namely, blind listening test subjects failed to discriminate because there was nothing to discriminate, neither filter ringing or content >22kHz even registered in the auditory cortex nor did it elicit any behavioural or psychophysical response! Therefore, the accuracy of the blind tests (in not discriminating difference) was corroborated.

I provided it in the reply to which you responded (post #16,991) and you posted the link yourself, within your “quote”. But here it is again:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78889-9

G

The study appears to look at High inaudible frequencies and doesn't appear to contradict the other study performed. It even contains the following passage to explain:

"Strictly speaking, the present study did not address the discrimination between high-resolution audio and standard audio, because the equipment used in this study was high-resolution grade and both sound materials were created in a high-resolution format (192 kHz/24 bits), except that one of them did not contain high-frequency components. Moreover, the current finding does not deny the existence of audiophiles with the ability to discriminate between the original sound and filtered and blurred sound without high-frequency components. Nevertheless, at least for people with regular hearing ability, the broad playback bandwidth of high-resolution audio does not seem to have an advantage over the traditional standard audio’s bandwidth at a conscious level, although the former does no harm (except for the cost). Another characteristic feature of high-resolution audio, namely quantization depth or the precision of analog–digital conversion, was not manipulated in this study. The mechanism through which it affects listeners’ experiences is a topic of future research."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78889-9

 

[mbphotox]

okay... I admit that I didn't read the papers nor did I read all the comments.

I only have one question:

did they expose the subjects while blind(ed) when they measured the EEG?

meaning:
were the subjects aware that they were hearing hi-res over lower resolution media?



if so, couldn't it be that they were really only "stimulated" by expectation bias?

because, we can hopefully all agree that psychology plays a major role in our enjoyment of music.
That it's very likely that something is experienced as "better" if I actually have an emotional connection or other investment.. (for many on head-fi, that would be money, lol)




All that said, coming back to EEGs and hi-res vs lo-res..
If you care about EEG responses more than your ability to hear a difference, they are about to loosen restrictions on psychedelic drugs.
It's a fact that they massively enhance the brain response to acoustic stimuli.. to the point where many will experience smells and colors at the same time.

 

[gregorio]

Could this have something to do with the EEG studies?
subliminal
/səˈblɪmɪnl/
1. (of a stimulus or mental process) below the threshold of sensation or consciousness; perceived by or affecting someone's mind without their being aware of it.

Not really. Firstly, the paper to which I linked demonstrated no excitation whatsoever of the auditory cortex (in response to filter ringing or >22kHz content). Therefore, there is no difference to hear, either consciously or subliminally.

Secondly, we could ask if there’s some behavioural or psychophysical difference which if big enough could be perceived/sensed consciously or small enough to only be sensed subliminally but again, no difference was found.

Lastly, we have the results of the controlled listening tests. Taking ABX as the example, we listen to “X”, then to say “A” and ask ourselves if we hear or sense any difference. If we feel there is, then our response will be “B” otherwise it must be “A”. There’s no requirement to identify what the difference is (if we sense one) or to grade it in anyway. So, if there is some sense/perception of a difference, regardless of whether we’re consciously aware of what it is, then a correlation will be evident in the statistical results even though we wouldn’t know how or why, but no such correlation has been evidenced.

G

 

[Ryokan]

Not really. Firstly, the paper to which I linked demonstrated no excitation whatsoever of the auditory cortex (in response to filter ringing or >22kHz content). Therefore, there is no difference to hear, either consciously or subliminally.

Secondly, we could ask if there’s some behavioural or psychophysical difference which if big enough could be perceived/sensed consciously or small enough to only be sensed subliminally but again, no difference was found.

Lastly, we have the results of the controlled listening tests. Taking ABX as the example, we listen to “X”, then to say “A” and ask ourselves if we hear or sense any difference. If we feel there is, then our response will be “B” otherwise it must be “A”. There’s no requirement to identify what the difference is (if we sense one) or to grade it in anyway. So, if there is some sense/perception of a difference, regardless of whether we’re consciously aware of what it is, then a correlation will be evident in the statistical results even though we wouldn’t know how or why, but no such correlation has been evidenced.

G

Thank you for the explanation, my reply was in response to: 'EEG studies looking directly at the brain's activity levels are far more convincing and objective than subjective blind listening tests'.

I've often found my listening experience is enhanced listening at night with the light off, and yet I know nothing physical has changed so it can only be my perception has sharpened.

 

[gregorio]

The study appears to look at High inaudible frequencies and doesn't appear to contradict the other study performed.

It doesn’t really contradict the previous study, it just expands on it. The only thing it arguably contradicts is the “suggested benefits”, which were merely a suggestion anyway and based on correlation between certain mental/emotional states and certain brainwave types but of course correlation does not indicate causation. For example, a higher alpha wave power is associated with (results from) higher arousal but higher alpha wave power may not cause higher arousal.

It even contains the following passage to explain: …

Sure, it only investigated (and effectively eliminated) the filter ringing and >22kHz aspects of “hi-res”. The other aspect of “Hi-res” (16bit vs 24bit) was not investigated but has been by other studies and is somewhat easier because it’s a relatively simple question of physics/acoustics and noise floor levels/thresholds rather than frequencies which affect brain wave patterns.

I only have one question:

did they expose the subjects while blind(ed) when they measured the EEG?
meaning:
were the subjects aware that they were hearing hi-res over lower resolution media?

Not sure I understand the question. If they were aware that they were “hearing hi-res over lower resolution” then they wouldn’t have been “blind(ed)”.

G

 

[mbphotox]

It doesn’t really contradict the previous study, it just expands on it. The only thing it arguably contradicts is the “suggested benefits”, which were merely a suggestion anyway and based on correlation between certain mental/emotional states and certain brainwave types but of course correlation does not indicate causation. For example, a higher alpha wave power is associated with (results from) higher arousal but higher alpha wave power may not cause higher arousal.

Sure, it only investigated (and effectively eliminated) the filter ringing and >22kHz aspects of “hi-res”. The other aspect of “Hi-res” (16bit vs 24bit) was not investigated but has been by other studies and is somewhat easier because it’s a relatively simple question of physics/acoustics and noise floor levels/thresholds rather than frequencies which affect brain wave patterns.

Not sure I understand the question. If they were aware that they were “hearing hi-res over lower resolution” then they wouldn’t have been “blind(ed)”.

G

yes

did they measure the EEG in a blind test or were the subjects in a sighted test when they measured the EEG?

 

[gregorio]

my reply was in response to: 'EEG studies looking directly at the brain's activity levels are far more convincing and objective than subjective blind listening tests'.

Indeed and that assertion is problematic, to say the least!

If we look “directly at the brain’s activity levels” but fail to look at where in the brain AND just assume that those activity levels cause some perceivable hearing, behavioural or psychophysical effects then those studies would tend to indicate a contradiction with blind listening tests. However, the evidence demonstrates no activity levels in the auditory cortex and no perceivable behavioural or psychophysical effects and therefore no contradiction with blind listening tests. The obvious response to the quote is therefore: How much more convincing can it possibly get than objective studies of brain/cortical, behavioural and psychophysical effects PLUS corroborating blind listening tests? Unfortunately, for many audiophiles it doesn’t matter because nothing is more convincing than a favoured reviewer or the marketing of an audiophile manufacturer!

did they measure the EEG in a blind test or were the subjects in a sighted test when they measured the EEG?

Not sure which study you’re referring to but as far as I recall, all were in blind tests.

G

 

[redrol]

as soon as I can get normal music in high resolution, I will.. as of now, its a big nopers.