"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 01:14:45 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Er...no, actually. Whatever the answer was, it didn't satisfy my
curiousity as to why anbody would invest so much time and energy into
defending a product in which he had no financial or, presumably,
emotional stake.

Then I guess you will have to go unsatisfied.

When Istared posting here over 10 years ago, ABX was already accepted
science. I had no idea that was a controversey for anybody other than a
few
nutcases I'd met. I didn't realize there was an entire cult built around
denying reality. The audio version of the flat earth folks.

So, 10 years later, you haven't bothered to even use ABX to make a
single audio purchase. Amazing that you spend so much energy exhorting
others to do just that.

I only suggest it when there's a question of sublte differences. If I ever
that question, I wouldn't hesitate to use ABX to resolve it.




You buy audio gear just like 99.9% of the universe does - you audition
it, you read reviews, you listen to others, you might even listen to
it against other gear in a showroom. You even read the tech sheets.

Hey, this is just like Arnold does. Even the Grand Poohbah doesn't use
it.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

I don't care if you or anybody uses ABX. It has an appropiate use and it is
one of the best ways to resolve questions of subtle differences. Being one
of the people who realizes that much of the stuff alleged to sound better
actually doesn't sound any different, there's not much reason for me to use
such a method. There seem to plenty of people who don't realize that a lot
of stuff sounds just like other stuff. For them ABX is a solution.