This article supports the experience of those who explore what our
thresholds of percieving various sound effects are in the observation that
quick switching produces better results. Like the recent post which
explored the effect higher levels of perception provides verry strong
feedback upon the entering signal, this looks at lower levels where sound
discrimination first occurs.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sna113005.php

" A team of Spanish and American neuroscientists has discovered neurons
in the mammalian brainstem that focus exclusively on new, novel
sounds, helping humans and other animals ignore ongoing, predictable
sounds.

These "novelty detector neurons" quickly stop firing if a sound or
sound pattern is repeated, but will briefly resume firing whenever
some aspect of the sound changes, according to Ellen Covey, one of the
authors of the study and a psychology professor at the University of
Washington. The neurons can detect changes in the pitch, loudness or
duration of a single sound and can even detect changes in the pattern
of a complex series of sounds, she said."
"

How does this support quick-switching?

It seems like the questions here involve what sorts of patterns the
"novelty neurons" are sensitive to, the basic sensitivity level of
them, and how those patterns are conveyed to consciousness.

Note that there's much more "novelty" in music, under ordinary
conditions (assuming not minimalism than in repeated short sound
segments.

Mike

wrote:
This article supports the experience of those who explore what our
thresholds of percieving various sound effects are in the observation that
quick switching produces better results. Like the recent post which
explored the effect higher levels of perception provides verry strong
feedback upon the entering signal, this looks at lower levels where sound
discrimination first occurs.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sna113005.php

" A team of Spanish and American neuroscientists has discovered neurons
in the mammalian brainstem that focus exclusively on new, novel
sounds, helping humans and other animals ignore ongoing, predictable
sounds.

These "novelty detector neurons" quickly stop firing if a sound or
sound pattern is repeated, but will briefly resume firing whenever
some aspect of the sound changes, according to Ellen Covey, one of the
authors of the study and a psychology professor at the University of
Washington. The neurons can detect changes in the pitch, loudness or
duration of a single sound and can even detect changes in the pattern
of a complex series of sounds, she said."
"

wrote in message ...
This article supports the experience of those who explore what our
thresholds of percieving various sound effects are in the observation that
quick switching produces better results. Like the recent post which
explored the effect higher levels of perception provides verry strong
feedback upon the entering signal, this looks at lower levels where sound
discrimination first occurs.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sna113005.php

" A team of Spanish and American neuroscientists has discovered neurons
in the mammalian brainstem that focus exclusively on new, novel
sounds, helping humans and other animals ignore ongoing, predictable
sounds.

These "novelty detector neurons" quickly stop firing if a sound or
sound pattern is repeated, but will briefly resume firing whenever
some aspect of the sound changes, according to Ellen Covey, one of the
authors of the study and a psychology professor at the University of
Washington. The neurons can detect changes in the pitch, loudness or
duration of a single sound and can even detect changes in the pattern
of a complex series of sounds, she said."
"

So how does the brain know when something is "new"? As I have said before,
"context matters".

"So how does the brain know when something is "new"? As I have said
before, "context matters"."

This was not addressed in the small blurb. It is context indeed.
Consider, the sensors react to a new change in sound and quickly tame down
after that sound persists. Consider a typical subjective sound effect
report, "the harmonics of the flute were compressed by the amp a and fully
realized by amp b". If this has any validity then that difference would
quickly disappear very soon after detection and not exist to the upper
perception centers thereafter. But switching back to another amp it would
be quickly detected as a difference event again and then also disappear.
Long listening sessions add nothing to confirming that difference but
quick switching would confirm it again and again.

This is why, I suggest, that the thresholds of audibility uncovered by
quick switching are more likely to be confirmed then would long listening
intervals of comparison. It also suggest why audible memory is so short as
a reliable reference and why this makes single device long subjective
sound effect detection meaningless unless gross differences are involved.

wrote:
"So how does the brain know when something is "new"? As I have said
before, "context matters"."

This was not addressed in the small blurb. It is context indeed.
Consider, the sensors react to a new change in sound and quickly tame down
after that sound persists. Consider a typical subjective sound effect
report, "the harmonics of the flute were compressed by the amp a and fully
realized by amp b". If this has any validity then that difference would
quickly disappear very soon after detection and not exist to the upper
perception centers thereafter.

I disagree.

First of all, we have to consider what these "novelty" neurons consider
to be novel information and what not. In listening to a flute playing
music in a normal manner, there are novel sounds all the time.

"harmonics compressed" is not a particular sound but an abstracted
feature of many different sounds.

New sounds are coming all the time; many of them are registered
consciously as having the quality "compressed". It is not at all clear
whether these novelty neurons are involved in generating such an
impression or any aesthetic perception for that matter.

I find it likely that the novelty neurons turn off in response to
repeated almost-identical sounds.

Mike

"I disagree.

First of all, we have to consider what these "novelty" neurons consider to
be novel information and what not. In listening to a flute playing music
in a normal manner, there are novel sounds all the time.

"harmonics compressed" is not a particular sound but an abstracted feature
of many different sounds.

New sounds are coming all the time; many of them are registered
consciously as having the quality "compressed". It is not at all clear
whether these novelty neurons are involved in generating such an
impression or any aesthetic perception for that matter."

A difference, any difference for what ever reason should show up during
similar segments, even more likely to do so in fact. The "aesthetic" is
irrelevant. One can hear in gross examples compression without difficulty
but compressed harmonics or whatever is being claimed as a subjective
reality would be much more likely to trigger these more subtle difference
effects. The effects are not created but detected and exist in the "real"
signal as it enters the brain, unlike those in the upper levels of
perception.

It is a testable notion, unlike far too much endless speculation that
occurs far too often. I'm trying to attach known acoustical handling
process in the brain to questions in hifi in contrast.

wrote:
"I disagree.

First of all, we have to consider what these "novelty" neurons consider to
be novel information and what not. In listening to a flute playing music
in a normal manner, there are novel sounds all the time.

"harmonics compressed" is not a particular sound but an abstracted feature
of many different sounds.

New sounds are coming all the time; many of them are registered
consciously as having the quality "compressed". It is not at all clear
whether these novelty neurons are involved in generating such an
impression or any aesthetic perception for that matter."

A difference, any difference for what ever reason should show up during
similar segments, even more likely to do so in fact. The "aesthetic" is
irrelevant. One can hear in gross examples compression without difficulty
but compressed harmonics or whatever is being claimed as a subjective
reality would be much more likely to trigger these more subtle difference
effects. The effects are not created but detected and exist in the "real"
signal as it enters the brain, unlike those in the upper levels of
perception.


You wrote 2 posts above:

(on "subtle compression effects"): If this has any validity then
that difference would
quickly disappear very soon after detection and not exist to the upper
perception centers thereafter.

As I wrote, a subjective impression is not a "sound". We need to
investigate what kinds of sounds are considered novel by the novelty
neurons; however, it seems likely that a sequence of sounds, each of
which is new, would all be considered "novel" even if they all
possessed an abstracted, subjective quality.

Mike

"As I wrote, a subjective impression is not a "sound". We need to
investigate what kinds of sounds are considered novel by the novelty
neurons; however, it seems likely that a sequence of sounds, each of which
is new, would all be considered "novel" even if they all possessed an
abstracted, subjective quality."

The sensors in question are placed at a very low level right after the
signal enters the ear. They are not impression but detect a difference in
the signal stream. If differences exist between bit of gear "a" and "b"
then quick switching would evoke them before higher level stored frames
modify their perception. pink noise is often used in listening alone tests
because the signal is an averaged random source. Some very very subtle
effects that exist in the signal can only be detected by using such
controlled sound sources and quick switching. During a musical passage
which is similar for a period this condition is best approximated and
quick switching serves best to evoke the sensors. We can speculate all we
want, this model explains why quick switching has been observed in
listening alone tests to pick up real differences not so detected by
sustained listening. Any other model would have to explain it equally
well to be considered as an alternative. Again, we have a testable model
and as such is more useful then additional "what if" musings endlessly.
Fiddling about with rhetorical meaning variation diverts and doesn't help
to clarify.

In my opinion, anything other than quick switching is meaningless. Some
days my system sounds great and other days it sounds awful. Whether the
reason for this is 1. Temperature, 2. Humidity, 3. Atmospheric pressure,
or 4. My state or mind (tired, happy, sad, etc.) I have no idea. I do
know that quick switching would point out any differences caused by
equipment changes but long term comparisons would be deceptive.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')

wrote:
"As I wrote, a subjective impression is not a "sound". We need to
investigate what kinds of sounds are considered novel by the novelty
neurons; however, it seems likely that a sequence of sounds, each of which
is new, would all be considered "novel" even if they all possessed an
abstracted, subjective quality."

The sensors in question are placed at a very low level right after the
signal enters the ear. They are not impression but detect a difference in
the signal stream.

So aren't the modulations of music (the constant change in signal) also
considered "differences"?

If differences exist between bit of gear "a" and "b"
then quick switching would evoke them before higher level stored frames
modify their perception.

How do the lower sensors distiguish between differences due to the
music itself changing, versus differences due to some abstract property
overlayed on the individual musical events changing?

Mike

"So aren't the modulations of music (the constant change in signal) also
considered "differences"?"

All I can relate is what the article said, after initial detection the
sensors don't fire during ongoing even complex continuing sounds like
music.

"How do the lower sensors distiguish between differences due to the music
itself changing, versus differences due to some abstract property
overlayed on the individual musical events changing?"

There is no abstract overlay at the low level place of the sensors, the
abstract exists only as the composite final perception. I can only
imagine this as some kind of evolution thing where abrupt new differences
serve as danger signals even while there are ongoing complex environmental
sounds occurring. There is no doubt some threshold effect also like the
masking effect where the brain ignores lower level signals in favor of
higher db level sources. This would explain why fast switching works best
because it more likely evokes the sensors anew during ongoing music
changes and only those of some threshold value are detected. This fits
with the observation in acoustics research that quick switching is the
only way to detect some very subtle low db level sound differences.