Phronesis
Headphoneus Supremus
the nature of what cues you're trying to perceive will define the testing protocol, so I don't even see how what you're asking for could be done to answer a general question.
but for detection of small changes in sound, which is usually what we discuss here, we have a bunch of recommendations starting with https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf (not sure if it's the latest version).
the reason for short samples isn't that we notice short samples better per se. it is that we remember things well only for a limited amount of time. it's all about memory instead of perception and this has at least 2 papers I know of, saying about the same things. which is that accuracy of a recalled audio event starts to drop after only a few seconds. so if your test sample is longer than what your brain can accurately recall, you're in trouble.
also it's obvious that when the point of the test is to detect differences between 2 samples, having then as close as possible in time from one another is helping. a little like how it's easier to find variations between 2 pictures when they rapidly switch on a screen, compared to spending 5mn looking only at one then 5 minute looking only at the other. the ability to go back and forth is a great help in identifying and confirming variations. the only real problem comes when the effect of something is felt only in the long term, obviously a 3second sample might fail there. and also when you have no clue what you're looking for, your short sample might not contain the cues you're supposed to notice. but beyond that I don't think there is much doubt left that rapid switching and short samples are the most effective listening method to detect small differences.
now if you're talking about identifying the components of one track, then obviously more time will probably help as you're not looking for differences with another sample.
I agree with all of that. The question though is how to relate (a) our ability to detect differences with short segments to (b) differences experienced in longer term normal listening, in which conscious and subconscious perception may be operating differently than in the short-term testing where the focus is on trying to consciously detect differences, and subconscious perception may be working differently. I do suspect that null results in the short term testing indicate insignificant differences for long term listening, but I'm not sure, and I'd like to see some solid evidence of the connection.
For example, maybe a small difference in the short term (less or more bass, less or more of some type of distortion, etc.) isn't consistently consciously detectable or seems insignificant, but in the long term it may be significantly more pleasant or annoying, and the difference may be perceived mainly subconsciously without being able to consciously point out the difference. I'm sure many of us have had the experience of there being a slight hum or high-frequency whine in our sound system or environment, and we fail to notice it because it's constant, but we notice when it suddenly goes away, and we realize it was subconsciously bothering us all along.
Last edited: