ludovic mirabel wrote:

Where is the "ground research for COMPONENT CMPARISON BY ABX"?
Analogies and inferences from other areas will not do (see below)
Translated for clarity your evidence means just this much:
psychometricians find that selected, trained subjects with normal
hearing will still hear normally while ABXing. A great hearing test.
Bully for psychometrics' "professionals". A shame though they will not
do any component comparisons. These are for us ordinary audiophiles or
what are they for?

I would rather listen to music. What do you do? Endlessly compare
components for inaudible differences and call it music listening?


What has it all got to do with comparing components for their
MUSICAL reproduction differences? Something more complicated is
involved- a zillion different brains of a zillion "audiophiles".
Beethoven and Klemperer would have been disbarred from psychometric
research- what a shame!

I would prefer the irony. With your posts, I have to wonder if you might be
serious.


You don't use a scalpel to cut bread. It works better in the
surgical theatre and you don't use psychometric tests to distinguish
between audio components.
Psychometricians keep out of it. Perhaps they know something. Or can
you give a references to the contrary?

One's that were here have left for reasons you can have a victory
celebration about.


In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
scalpels) But the point is made.

And the point is? (Sorry couldn't resist this generous opening)

Are you interested?


You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.


Your thoughts on postmodern thinking are appreciated. But I'm not
looking in RAHE for new insights into the theory of knowledge but for
something very much simpler.

Your posts on this subject indeed are typically postmodern in the emphasis
on the relativistic softening of known facts and attempted deconstruction.


I'll quote my text from one week ago that
also appears to have slipped your attention: ("The endless debate",
Sept 13
DBT2: Use in research including psychoacoustics; Subjects are
trained and the hopeless rejected- ie they are selected. A known
artefact (a certain amount of distortion, frequency bumps etc) is
introduced- subject either hears it or does not. Period.

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components; Randomly
collected test population. Diferent ages, gender, hearing ability,
training and aptitude for the test protocol, different musical
exposure and interest. *No objective target to aim at* so no one can
tell who is right and who is wrong. The few who hear or the most who
don't? Consequently the proctor verdict is by majority vote-the lowest
common denominator. The whole thing as subjectivist as could be and
certainly not replicable by another panel.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Do work on
your writing style. I'm don't read every post just to satisfy you. I'm
not going to go overtime responding to someone who writes in such a turgid
style.


Well, I've done more than see them. I reviewed Rampelmann's and
Motry's bibliographies and culled ALL the published ABX component
comparisons by audiophile panels that had been published in the 80's.(
none appeared since- but talk-talk about how wonderful ABX is-
continued) This review was quoted and discussed here in the past 2
years ad nauseam. Sorry this too slpped your attention. Even more
sorry for myself having to repeat it all every few weeks for the
benefit of anyone newly appeared on the horizon. (For Quotes see P.S.)
( None were published since- lots of smoke but no fire-lots of theory
but no practical results). ALL gave: "They all sound the same"
results and so will any others -guaranteed. When you collect a bunch
of "audiophiles" most of them will perform in the middle and give you
random, coin throw results. Only in this strange kind of "research"
the few who heard MORE than the average were added to the overall
results.. Why? Because of the agenda: cables ,amps everything MUST
sound the same- it sounds the same to US "researchers" and
"measurements" (that we have as of year 2003) are the same. All those
engineers such as Palavicini, Meidtner, Strickland, Hafler are con-
men or deluded and only the Rahe experts know how to show them up.

again, I don't know how to respond to a paragraph that looks as if has been
in the blender.


Great: testing codex is just the same as testing musical
characteristics of a component. Then please, test some components .
Audiophiles are not in the market for codex. And Mr. JJnunes-
reasoning by inference does not wash.

Usually lots of differences with codecs. Do you think they all sound the
same? Or do you want to put those words in others mouths?


(description of position snipped for brevity)

Pity. It contained your statement that ABX was "the best known way".

It did indeed.


To which I said:
Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying?

It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong
scientifically.

This is a change from " the best known way" Is it just "not wrong
scientifically"-whatever that may mean- or is it "the best known way"?

There is no change.

It is the best known way to identify subtle differences by the sound
alone. Sighted testing includes information based on other than the sound.
There is no contradiction except in your mind.


You can define "science" for your convenience. I define a "test"
as something reproducible by the targeted population from individual
to individual. ABX is not that.
But if it is "the best known way" then you're intellectually duty-
bound to recommend it. I'll tell you in secret: it is not that and it
is not a "test". There ain't no "test" with general audiophile
validity. Neither "best" nor "worse" Nohow, nowhere. In science
bluster and opinions do not replace evidence.
To quote the paragraph you omitted: "2) the "best known way" (ie
ABX/DBT for comparing components available for the last 30 years L.M.)
is not usable on this earth by human beings. Writing paper and angelic
choir are another thing
altogether"

You just don't like the evidence and you don't understand my position.
So you paraphrase and jumble it up in your blender (that's always ready -
even for your own words) beyond recognition. That's pitiful.


And if you and others just gave up the quaint idea that there
must be a "test" to measure subjective, individual perceptions of
complex signals like music (in no other sphere of sensory preferences-
just in audio- we're so blessed)... Rahe would become a useful forum
for exchange of personal experiences. And credible opinions of
credible witnesses would be interesting to others with similar
interests and so on. Just like the opinions of the mag. reviewers.

Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I never jump in on discussions about equipment with references to blind
testing. I wouldn't even if it was permitted in moderation policy. You
are free to rhapsodize as you wish. What's your problem???