AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02...
In article fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".

Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
differences at all?

My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
postings over the last two weeks
Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".

You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.

Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .
For the rest of your missive all I can say is "Poor Marcus- with
friends like these....".
Ludovic Mirabel

Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
audio componments using ABX"

But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
winning any which way. Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
voicing loudly..

Look who's talking, if the shoe fits...

This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.

Again, look who's talking...

Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.
This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout.

You keep describimg your own approach and misunderstandings of the
subject matter, not Bob's.

His
sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others),

I'm not sure who else you are referring to here but yourself and
Harry, but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic.

his
preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
and misunderstood those to boot.

Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
you.

Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners or insist that it is
OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.

The only one who continues to obfuscate here is you whith your
extremee misinterpretations fo statistics.

Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"

That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's.

It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
just as productive.

Yes, I do wonder why I bother restating myself to counter your overly
wordy verbiage that can't seem to get the the point. It is a chore.