If someone can hear the difference between two components (amps, say) by listening for an hour, rather than for a few seconds, fine. Just demonstrate it by blind listening. Get 18 out of 20 right. Or 68 out of 100. (Odds against doing either by chance are around 5000 to 1.) Then you will have a case.I just hope I never hear claims re echoic memory again in any audio forum!
Scientists don't understand how or how well it all works - ok?
How would you characterize psycho-therapeutic memory?What about anechoic memory?
One of the odd (and mostly overlooked) conclusions of the Rees paper with a meta-analysis of hires testing was that longer times for music listening resulted in more positive results than short times. They didn't conclude the longer the better nor how long was optimum. But that multiple tests seemed to indicate you received more results of difference with 30 second snippets vs anything shorter.
I'm not sure I believe that would hold up to scrutiny. I would say even with the constraints of echoic memory, 30 seconds is a good test length for each selection. If differences are big enough you'll hear them. And it is more like how we listen to music for enjoyment.
There are a number of very minor differences I can detect blind with instant switching and 3-5 second long listening segments, but most of them I can detect no other way nor are they large enough to matter whatsoever to me in regards to my normal music listening. Any one have any thoughts on that?
I think 2 minutes or 2.5 minutes.Do you recall how long the longer times were?
I just hope I never hear claims re echoic memory again in any audio forum!
Scientists don't understand how or how well it all works - ok?
Right! I don't need quick switching to know if my subwoofer is turned-off. Or, not too long ago I was at someone else's house and I noticed the left speaker wasn't working. That didn't require A/B switching or memory.Speaking for myself I remember systems I heard in general terms, even some specifics, say, this morning, last week, last year, even fifty years ago. I suspect most people can remember such things too. You can remember what Elvis’ voice sounds like, right?
Understanding how something works isn't required to study it. As to how well it works, that's been studied and results published. So, I'm not sure what your point is.
Maybe your point would carry better if you included a link to what triggered your rant?My post is a rant!! A scientific rant, but nonetheless...
Why are people so fond of this (bad, imo) analogy? Yes, I can remember voices, but I can recognize them as easily on good as well as on bad systems. That you can recognize voices doesn't automatically mean that you can recall differences (often subtle) between systems.You can remember what Elvis’ voice sounds like, right?
The analogy to audio would be to compare two pictures, the same except that the tint has been very slightly changed on one, or a very small amount of pixel noise added (changing the brightness, say, of each pixel randomly by a small amount). It's MUCH easier to detect this if you can compare the two pictures side by side, instead of looking at one, and then, a few hours later, looking at the other.How about visual memory or is that different?