I guess by that you mean Analytical, tweaked by you until the "trigger point" you imply in other posts is reached at which point it becomes "convincing". This delicate balance possibly is between the two poles of- "harshness" that some feel with intensely articulate system tuning, and "serenity" that lead some Euphonic systems to be less than engaging.
That you find that "trigger point" to be so dramatic in its results, yet subtle in its arrival may indeed mean that your MMN thresholds have been sensitized, and brings to mind some implications regarding ASA research in general.
It kind of begs the question: How has MMN been modified for subjects who have suffered chronic disorders as a result of PTSD? I knew a Vietnam Vet back in the 80's that confessed to me that all music forms were uncomfortably "noisy" and "jarring" to him after coming home. "Shellshock" may have irreparable effects on the perception thresholds, as if (for him at least) highly organized sounds were then rapidly vacillating MMN to the point of perceived
physical discomfort.
You asked me in another thread to try to provide sources for my conclusions regarding the inter-dependency of perceptual variables such as JND of loudness, vs. timbral factors. I'm not finding those references immediately (in my download library), which means they might have been based on an excellent book I read by John Pierce - "The Science of Musical Sound". In it he revealed to me an answer to a "roughness" perception (that I had discovered on my own when I was an electronics tech in the late 80's) that can occur when a steady-state signal is subjected to Amplitude Modulation. When the AM is too fast (a higher frequency of modulation) the sound is perceived as being "rougher" even when the modulation is of a perfectly sinusoidal shape.
In other words, the signal and modulator may be perfectly harmonic free (both sine waves) yet, the "earbrain" perceives the result as distorted. This may demonstrate the dynamic attributes of perception, and in particular the importance of envelopes, on perceived audio defects.
The following is a repeat post of mine from a couple of other threads-
Just a quick post to point out an online primer on psychoacoustics with relevant data regarding JND of loudness being approximately 1 dB, under conditions of mid-range frequency, mid-level SPL, and "normal" noise shape:
http://acousticslab.org/psychoacoustics/PMFiles/Module04.htm
Relevant to this thread- If JND for Loudness is measured at 1 dB for these "normal" conditions, wouldn't it be prudent to calibrate our systems (whenever possible) to 0.1 dB? After all, for critical conditions in other areas of engineering a 10:1 design factor ("safety factor") is not uncommon.
See the text approx. "
Effects of Duration on Loudness" and onward. Time-based effects (envelope) may have an effect on perception of Loudness (and by implication) many other perception metrics: Pitch, overall Frequency Response/ Timbre, and possibly others. This shouldn't actually be too surprising, given that the initial stimuli to these responses have two primary variables: Energy and Time.
At risk of redundancy, I'll C.C. this post to the ASA thread as well, as it relates to perception in general.