Quote:
Sorry sokolov, but I can remember what the distortion during the opening of Massive Attack's 'Angel' and the 'miaow' sound at 42 seconds sounds like for a lot longer than 4-5 seconds.
Well apparently I am not expressing myself well enough, because I am not, in any way, saying that it is impossible for you to do so.
What I am saying, is that as far as doing an accurate A/B comparison of an audible stimuli, you would need it to be quick.
Yes you remember the song, and how it sounds, you might even to be able to play all of it (more or less) back in your heard. That is the result of memorizing the song. You have not done with with every piece of music to the same degree.
Albums I know exceedingly well I could, if I needed to, do shoddy job of playing them back entirely in my head.
But this is entirely beside the point. We are speaking of being able to detect differences between cables. So it would have to be an audible shift in a far of the frequency spectrum. Therefore, for people to accurate identify what actually changed the switch would have to be quick.
Just like for say a crossfeed implementation, you flip it on, listen for a few seconds, you flip it off, listen for a few seconds. Now, I am not listening to the emotional context of a song at this rate, because that is not my aim, my aim is to notice a difference in how the sound of the song has changed.
The flipping on and off of the crossfeed tells you how much of an effect it has on that particular song, where the differences lie, and whether or not it is pleasing. Doing sever quick A/B test like this you can then decide if the change is one you like for this song, or if it one you would rather not have. Does it effect, in any way the emotional context of the song? No, not at all.
So doing quick A/B tests in the aim of getting people to identify a change is not "The wrong way to test audio" as far as giving people the most likely way to detect a change, it is the best.