[jeffc]

wrote in message
...
On Dec 25, 11:47 am, Greg Wormald wrote:
Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
to the music.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Before the data passes
into long-term memory, it MUST pass through short-term
memory. If you assertion is that short-term auditory memory
is defective in some way, than long-term memory cannot be
better.

Well, short term memory is defective in some way. These things are very
simple and have been known forever. For example, drive to work and when you
get there you can't remember anything about your trip.

The point is not that long term memory is "better", the point is that we
take a lot of things for granted when saying that a short term test (of
anything really) is going to be reliable. Lots of people get buyer's
remorse, or after a time start appreciating new aspects of a product.

Another simple example: look at a picture but just don't see what's there.
Then one day you realize it's a picture of Jesus. It could take a minute it
could take a year. But once you see it, you can't not see it.

This isn't rocket science, or voodoo, or snake oil marketing. These are
well known phenomenon.

Having said that, when an advertiser claims "dramatic, obvious, jaw
dropping,
my-non-audiophile-wife-could-tell-immediately-from-across-the-street
differences, and you are straining to hear any difference at all, be it long
or short term, then something is obviously not as claimed.