Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...

Harry Lavo wrote:


We aren't looking to determine differences, Bob.

You're the one who started this whole conversation by insisting that an
ABX test was inadequate. Well, the ONLY purpose of an ABX test is to
determine difference. If your argument is that an ABX test is not
adequate for determining something it was not designed to determine,
then you've been wasting our time.


It started because an ABX test was proposed as a means of making listening
decisions for audio equipment.
The fact that *difference* is the wrong measure is just one of the problems
with this approach.

Clearly you must be joking. Difference is *the* requisite predicate. If
you cannot determine a difference, due to sonic characteristics only,
then a preference (as between components) must be based on non-sonic
attributes. QED.


We're looking to evaluate
audio components sonic signatures and subjective shading of musical
reproduction. And there has been no confimation that ABX or a straight
AB
difference test can show up all the various shadings that show up in
longer-term listening evaluations.

There is no evidence that "various shadings" really do show up (rather
than simply being imagined by the listener) in longer-term listening
evaluations of components that cannot be distinguished in ABX tests.
You are once again assuming your conclusion.


The shadings can presume to be there, as they are heard by many people,
until proven otherwise. And they can't be proven otherwise except through
something like a monadic control test. The "shadings" are subjective; it
requires a test that can determine if subjective perception is real or not
and that is by ratings among a large cross-section of audiophiles, with
statistical analysis applied.

You keep repeating this misguided idea that a "monadic / proto-monadic"
test must be applied to some vast population to have any meaning. As a
research method to identify the frequency/distribution of some attribute
or parameter, and extrapolate that to the general population, this
method has merit. However, relative to the situation being discussed
here, it is merely a dodge. Why? Because population distribution is
irrelevant within the current context. You're talking about a test for
identification of *preference* within the population, where there is a
*known* difference in presented stimuli. That's a basic precept in the
method. There is no *known* difference in stimuli in the current context
- that's the whole argument.

Luckily, however, you already have a population subset, yourself
included, who claim to possess an attribute (i.e. who can distinguish,
sighted, the differences within a myriad of devices believed by many to
be indistiguishable, and believe that those differences are *real* and
reproducible), and thus the test need only involve that subset. Conduct
the test among the identified subset, construct the test to utilize
blind controls and level matching, then test in whatever manner, using
whatever scoring system, and for whatever period, you wish. Perform
sufficient replicates to generate a statistically valid data set, and
you're done.

Will this be universally transferrable to the whole population? No, but
again, that's irrelevant. It will, however, identify whether there is
such an attribute (ability to distinguish cable differences for e.g.)
within the *ONLY* population subset of interest. There is no utility in
testing outside that subset until the existence of the 'peceived'
attribute is confirmed, or not.

You see, testing only yourself, Mr. Lavo, using proper controls, would
be sufficient to confirm the existence of the ability you claim. Your
failure to confirm such an ability could not be extrapolated to the
population, but that's not the intent. So what keeps you from doing
just that? I did, and my observed (and obvious) differences in
cables...disappeared.

Keith Hughes