[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 4:24:08 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 7, 2013 9:28:14 AM UTC-5, Mark DeBellis wrote:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
First, it seems to me that it's possible that there could be two
=20
signals, say three minutes of music each, where I can't distinguish
=20
one signal from the other when I compare them, switching back and
=20
forth, but where, nonetheless, I get greater pleasure from listening
=20
to the first one (in its entirety) than to the second. It might be
=20
difficult to *compare* the pleasure of one to that of the other, but
=20
nonetheless it seems possible to me that, in fact, I might derive
=20
greater pleasure from one than from the other.
=20
=20
=20
Not only is this possible, but it's quite common. I frequently listen to =
the same piece of music twice, and derive greater (or lesser) pleasure the =
second time through.
=20
=20
=20
Of course, both times I'm listening on exactly the same system, so we can=
not ascribe the difference in pleasure to any difference in sound quality. =
Quite likely, I have focused on different things each time I listened, and =
heard things the second time that I didn't notice the first.
=20
=20
=20
By the same token, if I'd done that listening on two different systems, I=
could not ascribe any difference in pleasure to a difference between the s=
ystems, because there are other possible explanations.
=20
=20
=20
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
=20
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
=20
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
=20
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
=20
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
=20
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
=20
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
=20
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
=20
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
=20
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
=20
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
=20
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
=20
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.
=20
=20
=20
So if you cannot hear it in a quick-switching blind test, and you cannot =
hear it outside a quick-switching blind test, just when CAN you hear it? It=
seems you have devised a hypothetical that is impossible in the real world=
.. And that's leaving aside the fact that what you're suggesting is pure sci=
ence fiction to begin with. Don't bother suggesting anything similar; I won=
't respond.
=20
=20
=20
bob
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
[quoted text deleted -- deb]

I think Mark is on to something there, but I'm not terribly sure that you q=
uite=20
understood what he was saying.=20

What I got out of Marks post, if I understand this correctly, is that he be=
lieves=20
that devices which cannot be distinguished from one another by DBTs and=20
possibly even on long listening sessions or by bench measurements, may stil=
l,=20
on a subconscious level, affect the pleasure centers of the brain in differ=
ent=20
ways. I think we have all experienced this in one way or another. Even thou=
gh=20
one can't put one's finger on it, for some reason B is "more pleasurable" t=
o=20
listen to than A. This, if a real phenomenon, would certainly defy any atte=
mpts=20
at testing it and MAY indeed be why some people perceive differences in sim=
ple=20
interconnects or speaker wire. I say that it MAY be simply because the othe=
r=20
factors, such as measurements (being simple conductors, speaker cables=20
and interconnects are extremely easy to measure and to mathematically=20
model) and expectational bias are strong factors here mitigating against th=
e=20
wire and cable used in stereo systems having any discernible sonic signatur=
e. =20

Audio_Empire