Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 03:11:07 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
OK but I am saying, suppose the meaningful variable is a property of
an extended passage. So you have to listen to an uninterrupted
passage in order to perceive the property. Switching back and forth
will defeat the purpose, yes?

Yeah, but. First, the problem, if it were a problem, could easily be
solved by listening to longer passages. No one's ever heard differences
between competent amps/cables doing it that way, either.

It would not solve the problem because once you had listened to the
first passage you would have to remember the property for the duration
of the second passage, and I am hypothesizing that you don't have
reliable memory for that. That is the problem.

Then how do you know it's a meaningful variable?

FWIW, here I am thinking of SACD vs. CD rather than amps or cables. I
don't know if it makes a difference, but the intuition is about music
not white noise (say).


Second, the research demonstrates pretty clearly that our memory for
subtle sonic differences is very limited. In other words, contrary to
your conjecture, switching back and forth quickly and frequently really
is more effective.

Is the research that demonstrates this based entirely on the tests
that I am saying would not be sensitive to such possibilities? Isn't
that a circular argument? If not, what is the relevant research?

It's based on tests of human hearing. Your ability to remember partial
loudness differences lasts a couple of seconds, tops. You are
speculating that there exists something that violates this established
fact. What is it, and how do you know?

bob

wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 17 Jun 2005 03:11:07 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:
OK but I am saying, suppose the meaningful variable is a property of
an extended passage. So you have to listen to an uninterrupted
passage in order to perceive the property. Switching back and forth
will defeat the purpose, yes?

Yeah, but. First, the problem, if it were a problem, could easily be
solved by listening to longer passages. No one's ever heard differences
between competent amps/cables doing it that way, either.

It would not solve the problem because once you had listened to the
first passage you would have to remember the property for the duration
of the second passage, and I am hypothesizing that you don't have
reliable memory for that. That is the problem.

Then how do you know it's a meaningful variable?



It seems his point is that yo don't know it isn't either.




FWIW, here I am thinking of SACD vs. CD rather than amps or cables. I
don't know if it makes a difference, but the intuition is about music
not white noise (say).


Second, the research demonstrates pretty clearly that our memory for
subtle sonic differences is very limited. In other words, contrary to
your conjecture, switching back and forth quickly and frequently really
is more effective.

Is the research that demonstrates this based entirely on the tests
that I am saying would not be sensitive to such possibilities? Isn't
that a circular argument? If not, what is the relevant research?

It's based on tests of human hearing. Your ability to remember partial
loudness differences lasts a couple of seconds, tops.




Now that is interesting given that small barely audible level
differences can lead one to form a prefernce. How can that be?





You are
speculating that there exists something that violates this established
fact. What is it, and how do you know?





How do you explain the fact that small level diferences can lead to
prefeences if we can't remember them in our comparisons?




Scott Wheeler

wrote:


Now that is interesting given that small barely audible level
differences can lead one to form a prefernce. How can that be?


The slightly louder level will give the impression of more detail, because
more small levels rise above the threshold of hearing. Since the change is
small, you cannot detect more significant tones, but just a general feeling
of higher resolution.



You are
speculating that there exists something that violates this
established fact. What is it, and how do you know?





How do you explain the fact that small level diferences can lead to
prefeences if we can't remember them in our comparisons?


If there is a significant level difference, you could in fact detect more
acoustical events, like the noise when the musicians turn the page of their
partitures. In this case you can remember this additional sound, but it has
to be coined and recognized again in each trial. This would not be direct
comparison, because the recognition doesn't give a vague pointer, but a
destinctive indicator. It also needs to be learned by training and you will
need a focused attention.
So whatever people say about long-term and short-term testing, the opposite
seems to be the case, and in fact has been validated by research.
Long-term evaluation with long pauses between the trials will require an
evaluation that is tied to certain distinctive passages, where or where not
a certain sound/noise can be heard. The fast switching will give you more a
general impression of the music as a whole, without the need to concentrate
on separate noises. It will be more joyful, you listen equally to the
instruments, it is more what happens during a concert.



Scott Wheeler

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy