[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article . com,
" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
with
the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how
it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

.
==========================
Jenn says:
You're not making sense.

Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
as you like.

Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
put another random checkmark in one of the squares.

Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
all sound the same" outcome is assured.

But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
musical thinking.

Ludovic Mirabel

I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!

If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people
will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".

Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?
But that might settle this issue for all time...and then what would
RAO be?

ScottW