Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 02:27:00 GMT, wrote:
Yes. There's nothing that would make a DBT involving full 5-minute
samples invalid.
OK, then please explain to me where I'm going wrong. I am
hypothesizing
This is where you're going wrong. You are NOT hypothesizing. You are
engaging in idle speculation. "There might be something" is not a
hypothesis. If you can tell us what you think that something is, and
give us some reason to believe it might be a factor, then you have a
hypothesis.
that there are properties (1) that can only be perceived
over long stretches and (2) are not retained in memory.
Aren't these two things mutually contradictory? Certainly you are
relying on memory when you perceive something over long stretches. And,
to repeat myself, what is it? We're still waiting.
If there are
such properties, the kind of test I'm thinking of won't be sufficient
to measure the perception of them, because at the end of the second
5-minute sample, the subject won't remember the first one well enough
to make an accurate comparison. A test of this sort will not be
sensitive to the phenomenon. Please tell me why the reasons I have
given for my conclusion are not good ones.
However, there's also no reason to think they would
work better, as I noted yesterday.
(To be completely accurate, the protocols DO require that the subject
have the ability to switch any time he wants. But there is nothing that
requires him to switch more often than once every 5 minutes if he so
chooses.)
Perhaps the answer would be that there could not be a difference in
perceptible properties of longer passages without a detectable
difference in frequency response, which could be heard in quick-switch
tests; but is that obvious?
Yep.
Well, it's not obvious to me, so if you could give me some indication
why I should think it's true, that would be most appreciated!
Can you name some sonic distinction that isn't a partial loudness
difference?
bob