Re: Next page in the hi-rez media scam: A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluati Reply #375 – 2017-01-11 19:02:45 Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-01-10 03:19:13Quote from: board on 2017-01-07 22:16:05Perhaps also the Jackson paper from 2016, if possible.Thanks :-)!Please consult the relevant threads here that were posted at the time. It is easier than having us all rconstruct them for your benefit just because you don't want to do a few minutes research.Fair enough :-).However, I just spent some time doing that now and didn't get much the wiser. Theiss' paper is the one with the highest score, yet I couldn't find any info on it on this website, except that the name was mentioned twice in the same post in this very thread. The two Jackson papers I couldn't find much info on HA about either. They were discussed quickly in this topic as well, although I think it might have been one of those two papers where you mentioened that the transition band was too narrow.Before searching, I had an impression my search would be fairly fruitless (maybe I searched recently and forgot these were the results), but I also had the impression that you, Arny, read most of the papers mentioned in the meta-analysis after the meta-analysis was published, as the only person here on HA.But I understand that what I'm asking is a lot. I just hoped that you, Arny, could recap in a few words why each of the high-scoring papers were unreliable, as I think this might be useful for several of us - not only me right now, then also others who will look up the matter in the future.But if you decline I understand :-).Thanks anyway.