wrote in message
...
Keith Hughes wrote:

snip

First of all, let's get something clear. I don't really care any more
whether I like analog because of a technical superiority or because of
distortion. Secondly, I am willing to accept that quick-switch testing
as the industry uses is valid. However, I do have some questions about
how it works and whether it may have flaws. In the end, I am simply
trying to learn what's true. If you can answer my questions, I will
accept that the method is valid. I'm not trying to dispute you just for
the heck of it. I want to know what's true.

As you mention, there is a difference between "repetitions of same
segment" and switching while a piece is in progress.

I think it makes sense to ask if these methods exercise aural memory
and conscious perception in the same way.

For example, in repetition of the same segment, you are comparing a
signal to your memory of the same source signal. While switching in
progress, you are comparing the next bit of music to your memory of the
prior bit.

The next bit of music will likely be a different original source than
the prior bit, no?


Michael - hate to disagree but I think the switching "in progress"
actually helps and is much better. The reason: I think that when
listening to music, the brain "projects" what comes next, and when we
switch the comparison is what we hear versus what we expected to hear.
And I believe that "expectation" is the full context of the music itself,
the surrounding acoustic context, and the aural reproduction itself. So
when something even subtle is not as expected, it is noticed. Some
support to this is given in the Oohashi research by the fact that it took
a full minute and a half for the emotional "memory" to fade once the
cortex was excited, but this may be just coincidental. In any case, for
whatever the reason, this is the approach I use when comparing and I find
it much more insightful than trying to compare the same snippet
sequentially over and over between devices..

snip