Harry Lavo wrote:
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
news:GdxTb.163713$sv6.894310@attbi_s52...
In article ,
(Mkuller) writes:
I'm only claiming that memories of subtle audible differences fade more
quickly
than memories of large, gross differences, whatever they may be. You
have any
evidence to the contrary?
OK, if subtle audible differences fade quickly, doesn't that validate
the findings of DBT'ers that quick switching is the best way to
determine differences?
No, because those subtle differences often take time to be recognized and
enter consciousness.
er...how on earth does thsi work, Harry? You listen to A for as long as you
like. You listen to B for a long as you like. You switch between them
as often as you like, until the subtle differences are recognized and
enter your consciousness.
'Quick switching' merely means that when you *do* want
to switch between A and B (or X and A/B), the actual switching occurs
'instantanously', rather than with a long lag of no sound. You can *insert*
such a lag into the process if you like, if that's what you think it
takes for the differences to be recognized and enter consciousness.
Mkuller seems to agree that inserting such a lag would promote the loss of
accurate memory of subtle audible difference.
Why do 'objectivists' have to keep explaining this stuff to you guys over
and over and over?
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director