wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

Of course, this presumes that the brain understands and processes, in
conjunction with the ear, exactly the same thing in short-snippet,
qucik-switching, as it does in longer term contextual listening and
post-evaluation.

It presumes no such thing. Indeed, any such presumption would be
absurd. It's actually more plausible to believe that the reason the
brain has a harder time distinguishing audible sounds over longer time
intervals is precisely because it is processing the sounds differently.
But it is demonstrably true that the brain has a harder time
distinguishing between audible sounds as the time interval between them
increases. There's not even a shred of evidence to the contrary.


Sure it presumes exactly what I mentioned. You are presuming that if
something "disappears" when the time interval is lengthened, then it is
not
important.

Not only am I not presuming this, but I have never said that *anything*
disappears. Must you misrepresent what I say in order to argue with me?


I'm sorry, but the entire gist of your response has been to this effect.
Othes here can judge your disclaimer for themselves.

You have no evidence for this whatsoever unless you can show
that the results of the short snippet, quick-switch test give the same
results as a longer-term, monadic, cross-population,
post-listening-analysis
test.

Why in the world should I have to show that a listening test commonly
used by the leading experts in the field gives the same results as one
that has never, ever been used to test whether two sounds are audibly
different? That's preposterous. It seems to me that the burden of proof
rests with you. Show us that your "test" even works at all.


My test is a standard research test, used broadly all over the world in many
fields. The ABX is an audio-specific test. Moreover, it is used, as the
information Harmon Kardon's current use of it. It is much less
controversial test on the face of it, since it minimizes disruption of
normal listening patterns. The only thing one might fault it for is
sensitivity, but with this type of test sensitivity is simply a matter of
numbers...need more sensitivity, add more people.

Such a test does not rely on one person's aural memory;

Of course it does. You listen to a sample. Then you answer a few
questions about your impressions of that sample. How do you remember
what your impressions were? That's aural memory, Harry. And it works
the same in your "test" as in the real ones.

That is not aural memory, in the sense that you need it in an ABX test.
That is a recall of total impression, involving the brain and the emotions.
And that kind of memory is *very* recallable. It is also subjective. But
that is how we respond to and understand music (and musical reproduction).
It is objectified via the use of statistics. You don't object to that use,
do you?