[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On Jan 7, 9:24 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Second, consider the following hypothetical example. Two recorded
excerpts, A and B, are identical, except that A has some added
ultrasonic component that, over short spans of time, causes a
temporary reduction in loudness sensitivity. Plausibly, the way A
sounds to the listener will not be the same as the way B sounds,
because the end of A will not have the same perceived loudness that
the end of B will have. However, it's not going to be easy to test
for this simply by comparing the two excerpts. If the listener
switches back and forth, the excerpts won't sound different, because
any reduction in sensitivity will affect the two equally. And if the
listener hears one excerpt in its entirety and then the other, he/she
has the problem of comparing stimuli that are distant in time, which
requires memory, which is not necessarily reliable.

Several points

1. The scenario you describe is one where the two would be
trivially distinguishable in all but the most simple of
measurements, thus it would be easy to test your hypothesis.


Why would they be distinguishable by the listener?

I'm not syaing they would be distiguishable by the listener.
That's not muy claim. You hypothesized that the differences in
ultrsonic energy could have an effect on the short term
loudness sensitivity of the listener, a hypothesis I am
challenging. I merely stated that the differences between
the two would be "trivially distinguishable in all but the most
simple of measurements."

It also would be a relatively simple experiment to try. TO turn
such a hypothesis into an acceted theory requires verifiable,
falsifiable, repeatable experimentation.


--
+--------------------------------+
+ Dick Pierce |
+ Professional Audio Development |
+--------------------------------+