Harry Lavo wrote:

Okay, Bob. Where in your EE books does it tell you that the brain is
hardwired for rhythm and for positive reaction to certain harmonic
structure.

Where in your audiology books written before 1995 does it tell you
that
music elicits a response in the pleasure center of the brain.

Not to trash neuroscience, but isn't the finding that music elicits
pleasure, well, bleedin' obvious?

They don't, but these are facts recently discovered by researchers in
different fields. And they obviously indicate that "music" is far
more
integral to the human psyche than mere "sound".

Again, this was obvious long ago. That's why there IS music.

And yet you can't
even
begin to admit that maybe, just maybe, their must be an accounting for
such
differences in how we test to determine can/cannot hear in evaluating
musical reproduction?

No, because unlike you, I don't confuse music with music reproduction.
However our brain processes music, it evolved to do so eons before there was
any such thing as IMD--or, for that matter, the violin. So the idea that
such processing is affected by the extremely subtle differences in output
between amplifiers--as opposed to the gross effects of, say, rhythm--is
quite implausible.

And, while we're at it, none of my books in EE, audiology, psychoacoustics
or, for that matter, neuroscience suggest in any way that recent
discoveries about the brain reopen any of the settled questions about the
sensitivity of the human ear. Do any of yours?

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and
more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp