| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Jenn said: I didn't mean to be pretentious, of course :-) It's just that in musician circles, we usually use the Italian word (concerti) to make the plural of an Italian word (concerto). How would you musicians render the plural of "insectivore"? Middiuses? Middeyi? Middiots? |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com Now just imagine that medical research followed the ABX pattern. Patients get pill A for a time, then pill B, then pill X , At the end they are asked:; with pill X did you feel like you did with pill A or like with pill B? No possibility of objectifying the individual responses. This is obviously a really bad idea, one that was never suggested by anybody but Mirabel. It's essentially a straw man argument. One more stupid idea from a guy with a seemingly undending stream of them. Some "test", some "objectivists" Just shows that Mirabel doesn't understand that listening tests are subjective tests, so DBTs are subjective tests which makes people who advocate DBTs to be actually subjectivists. Of course, the analogy is not exact. It's yet another one of Mirabel's phoney ideas. ABX is an attempt to objectify the human being, No Bob that's what you and George do. by removing him from his natural environment. Aside from having a switchbox in hand, there's nothing else that needs to be different about the environment of the person doing the ABX comparison. Thanks for showing everybody once again, that you don't know what you're talking about. It is analogous of taking a fish out of the water to test its' sense of smell. If they're out of water too long, they stink, just like you. ABX has absolutely no regard for the environment of the victim, which is odious enough. Victim? I doubt that people trying to advance audio research at HK and other places doing research, feel like victims. For the rest, what's so hard about sitting in youir favorite spot and listening to whatever you think will help you determine if there's any difference between to components? |
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... [snip] Ludovic Mirabel You really shouldn't bet, you'll lose. Might have something to do with the fact that you don't want to find ABX reported in a positive light. Mikey, no one disputes that all amplifiers sound the same to you. It might have to do with occupational use of hammer drills. Nobody that knows what they're talking about disputes that amplifiers that measure similarly enough, sound the same either. |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... : : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : " wrote in message : link.net... : : : : "paul packer" wrote in message : : ... : : On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:35:16 GMT, " : : wrote: : : : : This should be greeted as good new, imagine if phoitographers found out : that : : their Polaroid could take pictures just as well as a Hasleblad(sp?). : They'd : : bedancing in the streets, : : Yo, bro, I bedancing too if my Nikotine could take as good as a : Haslebladder. : You makin this **** up? : Quite. but was has the above text to do with either Packer or myself ? You're cutting this postin' up? Rudy |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote: Olive's tests were indeed primarily about 'performance and preferences' -- of *listeners*, not speakers. The explicit question was: To what extent do the loudspeaker preferences of a group of untrained listeners , measured under identical listening conditions, agree with those of an expert panel of trained listeners? Obviously answering this requires comparing at least two loudspeakers that really do sound different. Olive used three or four. Obviously answering this requires testing more than one listener. Olive tested over 250 'untrained' listeners -- drawn from the ranks of retailers, marketing & sales, professional audio reviewers, and college students -- and 12 listeners trained at Harman specifically to detect audible speaker differences. Not so obviously, one might want to use more than one program of music as a test signal. Olive selected recordings by James Taylor, Little Feat, Tracy Chapman, and Jennifer Warnes "on the basis of their ability to reveal spectral and preferential differences between different loudspeakers in over 100 different loudspeakers in over 100 different listening tests and training exercises." Listeners were divided into 36 groups that were tested independently. Each trial consisted of four (or later, three) speakers randomly labelled A-D, presented to the listener group double blind (the speakers could be heard but not seen) and level-matched by Harman's 'speaker turntable', playing the same program material over each for 20-30 seconds. Listeners continued to listen to A-D until they had all rated all of the loudspeakers on an 11-pt scale (Olive says a trial typically lasted 3-5 minutes). Then the letters A-D were randomly reassigned and the speakers re-presented, using different program material. Four such trials (one for each different program) were performed by each listening group at the first (morning) session. A second (afternoon) session was performed in the afternoon by the same group, for a total of eight trials per listening group. And indeed, given the scope of his study, Olive *would* possibly still be performing these experiments, if, instead of using a randomized, double-blind level-matched multispeaker comparison protocol to assess effect of training on listener performance and preference, he had used a randomized, double-blind pairwise comparison protocol such as ABX to do so. This of course is *not* because ABX-type DBTs inherently render listeners insensitive to subtle difference, whereas the DBT Olive used does not. Olive doesn't believe that. Olive tells audiences that ABX tests are used for determining whether two audio devices under test are audibly different, *prior* to double-blind descriptive and preference testing (the sort of testing that's the focus of most his work). We must presume he believes what he says. And according to the ABX site, Olive et al. used ABX in 1997 JAES "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low Frequencies" -- a rather *sensitive* application, and rather *overkill* for establishing difference between loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, establishing difference is rarely an issue (indeed in his 2003 study, all four loudspeakers were significantly different from each other, based on preference ratings of their sound). Do you imagine that ABXing each combination of speakers would yield a 'no difference' result instead? Olive is clearly convinced of the *fundamental* requirement that in order to insure that one is reporting difference or preference due to the *sound*, listening at minimum should be done in a randomized, double blind, level-matched fashion. Unlike Dr. Mirabilis, Sean Olive certainly doesn't seem to believe that ABX tests *cannot* be used to discriminate difference between components. Unlike Dr. Mirabilis, when confronted with patent evidence that ABX *works*, Olive would not likely abuse logic by re-defining 'subtle' audible difference as being...whatever differences ABX hasn't validated. This, of course, is a classic case of begging the question. Differences detected by ABX (and DBT generally) always turn out to have independent support from measurement. This strikes Dr. Mirabilis not as a triumph of logic and science, but as some sort of *failure* of the method! Ability to measure a difference that passes a DBT means the difference is much too gross to be the sort of thing that *audiophiles* hear, says the good Doctor. No, the differences *they* hear are of a more refined, gossamer sort. Quite beyond the power of Science's crude methods to render, you see. Such bogus reasoning is the inevitable result of the magical, almost solipsistic worldview of audiophiles. For all of Dr. Mirabilis' diversionary huffing and puffing, Sean Olive simply would not agree with Dr. Mirabilis on these matters. That's because Olive has a measure of intellectual integrity....something of which Dr. Mirabilis, alas, cannot boast a shred. Dr. Mirabilis will keep on insisting from within a self-defined and ever-shrinking circle of conditions and definitions, that ABX simply doesn't work, no way, no how. __________________________________________________ ____ Dear Engineer: I had an idea that they teach engineers maths, and that maths have something to do with logic. The topic was : Give one, single example ( in four decades) of a properly published, statistically valid, ABX component comparison with a positive outcome; ie. majority of the panelists distinguished components from each other. You came up with Sean Olive's paper. There were two problems with it: A) ABX was not used, B) Majority of the panelists failed to distinguish the speakers from each other. Your clownish associate signing NYOB followed your example and called me a liar for pointing this out. You wouldn't dream of acknowledging a mistake. Instead you went into your normal dance of being the unsolicited, unauthorised spokesman for "science", next for Olive and even for me.. You penned two long missives "improving" Sean Olive's own text "explaining" why he did not use ABX- apparently designed to bore the readers so much that by the end they'll have forgotten what it was all about.and think that you really said something. No one is asking you WHY- what we want to hear is WHO used it and when? This, dear engineer, is in keeping with your habit of talking (rather ineptly) on behalf of "science" and ascribing idiocies from the depths of your psyche to me. I was going to quote your rubbish about the "measurements", me and high end but what's the point? In the meantime what happened to your ABX validation example? One, single one in four decades to show that it WORKS. Talk about "intellectual integrity". Ludovic Mirabel -- -S |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... All of it was about: A reference to one single properly published positive ABX comparison wrote: (to Clide Slick) Do you think the BBC got bad results when that had people come and evaluate speakers for them using ABX? That's the reason they chose Dynaudio speakers exclusively after realizing how bad their own designs were. I commented I'm too fed up to ask him for proper reference to BBC ever using ABX to determine their speaker choice and fed up of doing wild goose chases in his phantasy -land. See correspondence above for his ( ie same NYOB)use of phony web adreeses that turn out to have nothing to do with the topic. Where did BBC publish their ABX comparison results and when? Exact relevant quote with the word "ABX" in it. I bet you'll wait a long time Ludovic Mirabel NYOB: You mean you're too ****ing lazy to do the search for and find it yourself. Apparently it never occured to you that this would be information that was available from their research area. Try this and then you'll have to search each year to find the paper on how and why they chose Dynaudio speakers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/rpt60s_70to96.pdf Here's some more references you probably never checked either. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm You really shouldn't bet, you'll lose. Might have something to do with the fact that you don't want to find ABX reported in a positive light. . Did YOU? Actually- contrary to 95% of your random quotes from wherever your mouse took you - this last one, well known to me, had amongst chaff a few grains relevant to the topic: "Stereo Review" reports on ABX component comparisons in the 1980 decade Moderator(s)' conclusions:: cables- negative- they all sound the same preamps- ditto-ditto amps ditto-ditto Dacs ditto-ditto Cdplayers ditto-ditto. None since . Which should tell you something, but unfortunately you don't get what it's telling you. . You had said: Try this and then you'll have to search each year to find the paper on how and why they chose Dynaudio speakers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/rpt60s_70to96.pdf You can find the link I used in Google by finding the thread "For those who love the LS/3. I tried it yesterday and got a message saying that I was not authorized to view that page. I thought this strange since it was available previously, so I sent an e-mail to the BBC asking why. When I know I'll let you know. You don't mind if I repeat the bet. All you have to do is to quote ONE sentence from BBC protocol-methods with ABX in it. This what we're looking for aren't we? Not WHY they chose Dynaudio but HOW? If I can get the page to open for me, I'll be happy to make you eat your words. Your BBC reference is to ALL the hundreds of papers on ANY topic published by the BBC between 1970 and 2000. I declined. Coward. Your answer: " You mean you're too ****ing lazy to do the search for and find it yourself. I tried to teach you what a reference is. It seems I had little success. I trried to show what being a self starter is, looks like I failed as well. As to your fondness for "****ing" as your clinching argument: Dear NYOB: One of the pleasanter things about ending my Army service was not having to hear in every other sentence your favourite swearword. My son when he was 10 was told to go to his room and wash his mouth out before coming back. This probably strikes you as sissy- but there you are- another preference we don't share. To sum up: I'm still trying to get as close to the real cello or piano sound coming out of my speakers, as I can. Get better speakers. I gather that ABX reassured you that you already reached the audio Nirvana and anyone questioning it is a wimp or worse. It showed me where to concentrate my efforts. I have no intention of changing your mind. Do you mind no longer lecturing about "science", "proving " this or that by ABX test and so on. It gets to be a bore and you really know very little about it. You'll forgive me if I do not continue corresponding with you. Ludovic Mirabel You'll forgive me if I still think you're a dumb ass. |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... : : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : ... : : " wrote in message : link.net... : : : : "paul packer" wrote in message : : ... : : On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 04:35:16 GMT, " : : wrote: : : : : This should be greeted as good new, imagine if phoitographers found out : that : : their Polaroid could take pictures just as well as a Hasleblad(sp?). : They'd : : bedancing in the streets, : : Yo, bro, I bedancing too if my Nikotine could take as good as a : Haslebladder. : You makin this **** up? : Quite. but was has the above text to do with either Packer or myself ? You're cutting this postin' up? Rudy So'ry, no, ah' should gots hung dese balls right on Mikey. Slap mah fro! Mikey, he dink he da Man. 'S coo', bro. One uh dese days, he meat da damn Man. 'S coo', bro. |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Now just imagine that medical research followed the ABX pattern. Patients get pill A for a time, then pill B, then pill X , At the end they are asked:; with pill X did you feel like you did with pill A or like with pill B? No possibility of objectifying the individual responses. This is obviously a really bad idea, one that was never suggested by anybody but Mirabel. It's essentially a straw man argument. One more stupid idea from a guy with a seemingly undending stream of them. __________________________________________________ __ Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Now just imagine that medical research followed the ABX pattern. Patients get pill A for a time, then pill B, then pill X , At the end they are asked:; with pill X did you feel like you did with pill A or like with pill B? No possibility of objectifying the individual responses. This is obviously a really bad idea, one that was never suggested by anybody but Mirabel. Arny, Arny! You do not *really* think that I propose this monstrosity as the right way to run medical research. You're intelligent enough to know a "reductio ad absurdum" analogy and to distinguish it from a proposal. You must know that I wanted to show that ABXing is not a universally applicable (delicately put) stairway to convincing results paradise. Exactly the reverse of what you're trying to put in my mouth. Take my word for it- it is this kind of twisting the meaning in place of serious debate that makes people see red and ,truly, does you no credit. Now, that we got this out of the way, let me say that basically I have no quarrel with you. You invented and promoted an ingenious way of testing for differences in sound. To the best of my limited knowledge it has found its place in psychoacoustic research and I gather is a useful training tool for learning to listen to music reproduction for those who like using it. As you know a different wrinkle suits me but I will not mention it for fear of getting again into the blind alley of violent controversy. I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". It is your professed disciples that bring ABX into disrepute. (But isn't that the fate of all ideologies- religious and lay alike?) Surely you know that the complexities of musical signal, reproduced by a variable chain of electro-mechanical devices and perceived by countless, countlessly different, individual brains can have statistical results only- for that collection of components -,in that room, for that panel selection. And however wide the selection it will not disprove that another set of temporal-frontal brain lobes will not hear something different. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. Show your betters some
respect. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Arny, if you had not yet grasped that there is no way for you to "prove" or "disprove" what mine or for that matter your brain perceive when we listen to music and no way for Murray Perahia to prove or disprove to you or me how he manages to distinguish between two makes of piano. and no way for a skilled piano tuner to make you understand how he finds the maladjusted wire tension and so on and so on then I doubt if you'll grasp it now on my say so. You may think that you have a way to "test" if their perceptions are "real".. I suspect that if you demanded that Perahia and the piano tuner submit their perceptions to your "test" they might laugh in your face. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. A claim without proof. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. A claim without proof. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. If yo weren't in such denial over the fact that devices that perform within certain tolerances wil sound the same, there would be no argument, then you wouldn't look like such a fool. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. It reveals those experiences for what they are, expectation bias. Perhaps if you read more on psychology, you'd realize that there is nothing odd about the fact that people perceive things differently under sighted conditions. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that people listening with their eyes are likely to perceive things that aren't really there, is what makes you look like such an idiot. |
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". So both: the statistical significance and the kind of signal are contentious and have to be thrashed out *before* anyone can "prove" anything to you. Where and when was this foundation work for the use of ABX in comparing components performed? With what results? Where were they published for critical examination? Rumours about what "industry" is supposed to be doing are unworthy of people claiming to be "scientists" I have some idea of what passes for validation in medical research. One states the panel's size, how and why were the panelists selected, (their gender, age, musical exposure and experience). One states what signals (drugs in this case) were used. One states clearly one's statistical criteria of significance. Then after several independent trials one can proclaim the validity of one's method. Seat of the pants assertions that it must be "good" are neither here nor there. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. Exhibit A: Mikey McKelviphibian |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" A difference. Contrary to your constant drone, such things are possible with ABX. If you'd go to pcabx, YOU could prove that to yourself. Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Yes, when somebody gets that close, comparing things for which no difference exists in reality, you want to see if they do better or worse in successive trials. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. Pink noise is better for that sort of thing, irrespective of the harping from the peanut gallery. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No it's just another demonstration that some signals are better for hearing differences than others. This is well known to audio researchers. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. Time to crack on book on why pink noise is better for such a test, but not you, you'd rather bluster about stuff you know noting about. Typical of all the ABX critics. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". And has been to the satisfaction of most audio researchers in the world. SNIP of non relevant B.S. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel Until you can prove that ABX masks any differences you haven't a leg to stand on. Which people or organizations doing audio research do NOT use ABX or some variant? |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. OOPS, sorry if I confused you with the sockpuppett. The other stuff stands, yo have the burden of proof. |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. Exhibit A: Sock puppett Morein. |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. That was me. Well, "at least'" we're even now, I did that myself a few hours ago |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. OOPS, sorry if I confused you with the sockpuppett. The other stuff stands, yo have the burden of proof. I made the same mistake on a post a few hours ago. BTW, Why is Morein a sockpuppet, while you and I are not? |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote: Olive's tests were indeed primarily about 'performance and preferences' -- of *listeners*, not speakers. The explicit question was: To what extent do the loudspeaker preferences of a group of untrained listeners , measured under identical listening conditions, agree with those of an expert panel of trained listeners? Obviously answering this requires comparing at least two loudspeakers that really do sound different. Olive used three or four. Obviously answering this requires testing more than one listener. Olive tested over 250 'untrained' listeners -- drawn from the ranks of retailers, marketing & sales, professional audio reviewers, and college students -- and 12 listeners trained at Harman specifically to detect audible speaker differences. Not so obviously, one might want to use more than one program of music as a test signal. Olive selected recordings by James Taylor, Little Feat, Tracy Chapman, and Jennifer Warnes "on the basis of their ability to reveal spectral and preferential differences between different loudspeakers in over 100 different loudspeakers in over 100 different listening tests and training exercises." Listeners were divided into 36 groups that were tested independently. Each trial consisted of four (or later, three) speakers randomly labelled A-D, presented to the listener group double blind (the speakers could be heard but not seen) and level-matched by Harman's 'speaker turntable', playing the same program material over each for 20-30 seconds. Listeners continued to listen to A-D until they had all rated all of the loudspeakers on an 11-pt scale (Olive says a trial typically lasted 3-5 minutes). Then the letters A-D were randomly reassigned and the speakers re-presented, using different program material. Four such trials (one for each different program) were performed by each listening group at the first (morning) session. A second (afternoon) session was performed in the afternoon by the same group, for a total of eight trials per listening group. And indeed, given the scope of his study, Olive *would* possibly still be performing these experiments, if, instead of using a randomized, double-blind level-matched multispeaker comparison protocol to assess effect of training on listener performance and preference, he had used a randomized, double-blind pairwise comparison protocol such as ABX to do so. This of course is *not* because ABX-type DBTs inherently render listeners insensitive to subtle difference, whereas the DBT Olive used does not. Olive doesn't believe that. Olive tells audiences that ABX tests are used for determining whether two audio devices under test are audibly different, *prior* to double-blind descriptive and preference testing (the sort of testing that's the focus of most his work). We must presume he believes what he says. And according to the ABX site, Olive et al. used ABX in 1997 JAES "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low Frequencies" -- a rather *sensitive* application, and rather *overkill* for establishing difference between loudspeakers. With loudspeakers, establishing difference is rarely an issue (indeed in his 2003 study, all four loudspeakers were significantly different from each other, based on preference ratings of their sound). Do you imagine that ABXing each combination of speakers would yield a 'no difference' result instead? Olive is clearly convinced of the *fundamental* requirement that in order to insure that one is reporting difference or preference due to the *sound*, listening at minimum should be done in a randomized, double blind, level-matched fashion. Unlike Dr. Mirabilis, Sean Olive certainly doesn't seem to believe that ABX tests *cannot* be used to discriminate difference between components. Unlike Dr. Mirabilis, when confronted with patent evidence that ABX *works*, Olive would not likely abuse logic by re-defining 'subtle' audible difference as being...whatever differences ABX hasn't validated. This, of course, is a classic case of begging the question. Differences detected by ABX (and DBT generally) always turn out to have independent support from measurement. This strikes Dr. Mirabilis not as a triumph of logic and science, but as some sort of *failure* of the method! Ability to measure a difference that passes a DBT means the difference is much too gross to be the sort of thing that *audiophiles* hear, says the good Doctor. No, the differences *they* hear are of a more refined, gossamer sort. Quite beyond the power of Science's crude methods to render, you see. Such bogus reasoning is the inevitable result of the magical, almost solipsistic worldview of audiophiles. For all of Dr. Mirabilis' diversionary huffing and puffing, Sean Olive simply would not agree with Dr. Mirabilis on these matters. That's because Olive has a measure of intellectual integrity....something of which Dr. Mirabilis, alas, cannot boast a shred. Dr. Mirabilis will keep on insisting from within a self-defined and ever-shrinking circle of conditions and definitions, that ABX simply doesn't work, no way, no how. __________________________________________________ __________________________ Engineer Sullivan , I'm disappointed that so far you meekly accepted my demonstration of how you falsified Sean Olive's paper. Would have been fun to see you wriggle. Instead you went elsewhere to try it all over again hoping that no one will notice. Two days later you repeated a (wisely) shorter version of your 1st. attempt at a travesty in the RAHE thread "A model of the brain" . Shorter but for the most part verbatim, which I understand Il Duce of RAHE frowns on.. So for the record a resume: I've been challenging for 3 years the Usenet "objectivists" to quote one single positive ABX component comparison test that passed any publication's criteria. (As per moderator conclusions: "Yes the panel did differentiate comparable components from each other") Finally you came up with S. Olive's "Differences in performance and preference...." article (JAES,vol..51,#9. 2003) as your sole offering. I quote: But you did say 'any roughly comparable audio components' And Olive did use Harman's ABX-type speaker comparator setup. And the results were certainly positive for *difference*. I answered: Olive DID NOT use ABX. Quote: "All tests were performed double blind using monophonic comparisons... Switching between loudspeakers in each trial was performed in a random sequence by the experimenter" Do you know the meaning of "random sequence" as opposed to "ABX sequence" And in case you'll try to weasel out by talking about "ABX-type speaker comparator" I'm stating here black -on-white that I asked Olive specifically by letter if he used ABX protocol and he said he found it unsuitable for his purpose. Talk about my lies Mr. Sullivan- you, the inventor of an "ABX/RAO type speaker comparator". Especially for Sean Olive to use. Now your fabrication Nr.2.. " Of course, hearing a real difference between *speakers* in an ABX test is not much of a challenge. Olive's tests were in fact about comparing speaker *preference* of trained versus untrained listeners. This is what Olive says in his PREAMBLE on page 1 (one): "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all categories of listeners...." He has also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator." The very reverse of your confabulations. Hearing DIFFERENCES was the challenge. Preference, when not bothered trying to distinguish, was easy.. And what happened next? You did not apologise for your error. You tried to brazen it manufacturing long explanations WHY S. Olive did not use ABX in this test.. On his behalf. And then you went with your false currency to exchange it at RAHE counter where the moderator does not allow ABX discussion unless it is in favour of it.. That you of all people call me a liar and have the audacity to talk about "intellectual integrity" adds a note of black humour to this affair. And you still don't quote one single, published positive ABX test. (Want to try PC/ABX once again?) Ludovic Mirabel I -- -S |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. OOPS, sorry if I confused you with the sockpuppett. The other stuff stands, yo have the burden of proof. I made the same mistake on a post a few hours ago. BTW, Why is Morein a sockpuppet, while you and I are not? Because I'm convinced you are bull****ting about your stand on ABX and alleged sonic differences in snake oil products just to jerk some chains. Morein is either doing the same, since it is not possible to have his alleged backround and be as stupid as he appears. Either that or he really is that stupid and not Robert Morin. Beside, I like to jerk his chain. For now. Eventually he'll get boring just like B.J. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" A difference. Contrary to your constant drone, such things are possible with ABX. If you'd go to pcabx, YOU could prove that to yourself. Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Yes, when somebody gets that close, comparing things for which no difference exists in reality, you want to see if they do better or worse in successive trials. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. Pink noise is better for that sort of thing, irrespective of the harping from the peanut gallery. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No it's just another demonstration that some signals are better for hearing differences than others. This is well known to audio researchers. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. Time to crack on book on why pink noise is better for such a test, but not you, you'd rather bluster about stuff you know noting about. Typical of all the ABX critics. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". And has been to the satisfaction of most audio researchers in the world. SNIP of non relevant B.S. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel Until you can prove that ABX masks any differences you haven't a leg to stand on. Until you can prove that ABX reveals any differences, you haven't a leg to stand on. Which people or organizations doing audio research do NOT use ABX or some variant? High end audio manufacturers. It is proven that ABX is used to manufacture equipment with reduced quality. |
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com Now just imagine that medical research followed the ABX pattern. Patients get pill A for a time, then pill B, then pill X , At the end they are asked:; with pill X did you feel like you did with pill A or like with pill B? No possibility of objectifying the individual responses. This is obviously a really bad idea, one that was never suggested by anybody but Mirabel. It's essentially a straw man argument. One more stupid idea from a guy with a seemingly undending stream of them. Some "test", some "objectivists" Just shows that Mirabel doesn't understand that listening tests are subjective tests, so DBTs are subjective tests which makes people who advocate DBTs to be actually subjectivists. Of course, the analogy is not exact. It's yet another one of Mirabel's phoney ideas. ABX is an attempt to objectify the human being, No Bob that's what you and George do. by removing him from his natural environment. Aside from having a switchbox in hand, there's nothing else that needs to be different about the environment of the person doing the ABX comparison. Thanks for showing everybody once again, that you don't know what you're talking about. It is analogous of taking a fish out of the water to test its' sense of smell. If they're out of water too long, they stink, just like you. ABX has absolutely no regard for the environment of the victim, which is odious enough. Victim? I doubt that people trying to advance audio research at HK and other places doing research, feel like victims. That's not their objective. They make bad sounding equipment. For the rest, what's so hard about sitting in youir favorite spot and listening to whatever you think will help you determine if there's any difference between to components? Unfortunately, Arny's machine contains ruthenium, which destroys sound transparency. |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. A claim without proof. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. A claim without proof. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. If yo weren't in such denial over the fact that devices that perform within certain tolerances wil sound the same, there would be no argument, then you wouldn't look like such a fool. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. It reveals those experiences for what they are, expectation bias. Perhaps if you read more on psychology, you'd realize that there is nothing odd about the fact that people perceive things differently under sighted conditions. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that people listening with their eyes are likely to perceive things that aren't really there, is what makes you look like such an idiot. The fact that ABX causes people to ignore differences that actually exist is a crime. |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. Exhibit A: Sock puppett Morein. Well then, perhaps you've been arguing with someone else, while Morein watches smugly as you make a fool of yourself. It certainly saves Robert time. |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. A claim without proof. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. A claim without proof. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. If yo weren't in such denial over the fact that devices that perform within certain tolerances wil sound the same, there would be no argument, then you wouldn't look like such a fool. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. It reveals those experiences for what they are, expectation bias. Perhaps if you read more on psychology, you'd realize that there is nothing odd about the fact that people perceive things differently under sighted conditions. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that people listening with their eyes are likely to perceive things that aren't really there, is what makes you look like such an idiot. The fact that ABX causes people to ignore differences that actually exist is a crime. Prove that it does that. You can't because you know you are lying. If you weren't you'd have proven it already and be dancing a jig in triumph. |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" A difference. Contrary to your constant drone, such things are possible with ABX. If you'd go to pcabx, YOU could prove that to yourself. Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Yes, when somebody gets that close, comparing things for which no difference exists in reality, you want to see if they do better or worse in successive trials. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. Pink noise is better for that sort of thing, irrespective of the harping from the peanut gallery. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No it's just another demonstration that some signals are better for hearing differences than others. This is well known to audio researchers. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. Time to crack on book on why pink noise is better for such a test, but not you, you'd rather bluster about stuff you know noting about. Typical of all the ABX critics. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". And has been to the satisfaction of most audio researchers in the world. SNIP of non relevant B.S. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel Until you can prove that ABX masks any differences you haven't a leg to stand on. Until you can prove that ABX reveals any differences, you haven't a leg to stand on. Which people or organizations doing audio research do NOT use ABX or some variant? High end audio manufacturers. Bull****. It is proven that ABX is used to manufacture equipment with reduced quality. More bull****. |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... " wrote in message link.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... Mikey, you are not Ludovic's intellectual equal. God I hope not, the man's a idiot, when it comes to audio. Show your betters some respect. When I encounter them I do. You have an inferior mind; a low IQ, and poor hearing. A claim for which you have no evidence. I am sure an IQ challenge can be arranged. Or will you duck, like Arny? I think the only one with something to prove is you sockpuppet Morein. Prove any of your claims about ABX, or your hearing. OOPS, sorry if I confused you with the sockpuppett. The other stuff stands, yo have the burden of proof. I made the same mistake on a post a few hours ago. BTW, Why is Morein a sockpuppet, while you and I are not? Because I'm convinced you are bull****ting about your stand on ABX and alleged sonic differences in snake oil products just to jerk some chains. Morein is either doing the same, since it is not possible to have his alleged backround and be as stupid as he appears. Either that or he really is that stupid and not Robert Morin. Beside, I like to jerk his chain. For now. Eventually he'll get boring just like B.J. Whose chain are you jerking, Mikey? Maybe Morein is skiiing in Vail. I hear he owns a lot of real estate. |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. A claim without proof. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. A claim without proof. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. If yo weren't in such denial over the fact that devices that perform within certain tolerances wil sound the same, there would be no argument, then you wouldn't look like such a fool. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. It reveals those experiences for what they are, expectation bias. Perhaps if you read more on psychology, you'd realize that there is nothing odd about the fact that people perceive things differently under sighted conditions. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that people listening with their eyes are likely to perceive things that aren't really there, is what makes you look like such an idiot. The fact that ABX causes people to ignore differences that actually exist is a crime. Prove that it does that. You can't because you know you are lying. If you weren't you'd have proven it already and be dancing a jig in triumph. You want people to use it. The obligation is yours to prove it is transparent. |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" A difference. Contrary to your constant drone, such things are possible with ABX. If you'd go to pcabx, YOU could prove that to yourself. Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Yes, when somebody gets that close, comparing things for which no difference exists in reality, you want to see if they do better or worse in successive trials. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. Pink noise is better for that sort of thing, irrespective of the harping from the peanut gallery. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No it's just another demonstration that some signals are better for hearing differences than others. This is well known to audio researchers. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. Time to crack on book on why pink noise is better for such a test, but not you, you'd rather bluster about stuff you know noting about. Typical of all the ABX critics. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". And has been to the satisfaction of most audio researchers in the world. SNIP of non relevant B.S. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel Until you can prove that ABX masks any differences you haven't a leg to stand on. Until you can prove that ABX reveals any differences, you haven't a leg to stand on. Which people or organizations doing audio research do NOT use ABX or some variant? High end audio manufacturers. Bull****. It is proven that ABX is used to manufacture equipment with reduced quality. More bull****. Failure to respond in a meaningful fashion, noted  |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein said duh-Mikey: If you weren't you'd have proven it already and be dancing a jig in triumph. You want people to use it. The obligation is yours to prove it is transparent. Actually, I doubt Mickey really hopes Normals will start voluntarily undergoing the blinding rituals. Mickey's involvement with audio, like the Major 'Borgs, is limited to yakking impotently on Usenet. Mickey truly admires the Krooborg, you know, and Arnii has admitted openly that he actually believes his "debating trade" crapola is a "business". (One good thing about being delusional is that you're unable to see how ridiculous you are.) |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message hlink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... [snip] Ludovic Mirabel You really shouldn't bet, you'll lose. Might have something to do with the fact that you don't want to find ABX reported in a positive light. Mikey, no one disputes that all amplifiers sound the same to you. It might have to do with occupational use of hammer drills. Nobody that knows what they're talking about disputes that amplifiers that measure similarly enough, sound the same either. The statement is empty, Mikey. The parameters of the specification "measure similarly enough" are not defined. You have an inferior mind. |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Robert Morein said duh-Mikey: If you weren't you'd have proven it already and be dancing a jig in triumph. You want people to use it. The obligation is yours to prove it is transparent. Actually, I doubt Mickey really hopes Normals will start voluntarily undergoing the blinding rituals. Mickey's involvement with audio, like the Major 'Borgs, is limited to yakking impotently on Usenet. Mickey truly admires the Krooborg, you know, and Arnii has admitted openly that he actually believes his "debating trade" crapola is a "business". (One good thing about being delusional is that you're unable to see how ridiculous you are.) True, but the creature can still feel frustration and anguish. |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Of these cases, some proportion will fail because there is no audible difference. Another proportion will fail because the ABX device is not transparent. A claim without proof. Another proportion will fail because they are mentally disadvantaged by the circumstances of the test. A claim without proof. I take no position as to which of the above constitute the biggest proportion. But the order is not important. After all, 1% of the population does most of the original thinking, but 1% is not an ignorable subset. If you had not made such outrageous claims about the indistinguishability of amplifiers, we would not be arguing so vociferously. If yo weren't in such denial over the fact that devices that perform within certain tolerances wil sound the same, there would be no argument, then you wouldn't look like such a fool. But you have made the mistake of using your device to reach an untenable conclusion that contradicts the experience of many intelligent people. It reveals those experiences for what they are, expectation bias. Perhaps if you read more on psychology, you'd realize that there is nothing odd about the fact that people perceive things differently under sighted conditions. I am quite sure of the following: certain amplifier technologies result in a distinct sound character. While some of these technologies, such as tube and SET represent known distortions and colorations, other technologies comply with the common meaning of "properly functioning", or "properly operating". And yet, these technologies do produce distinguishable results. The failure of the ABX proponents to be observationally aware of the above signifies experimental flaws, which are allowed to exist by experimenter prejudice. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that people listening with their eyes are likely to perceive things that aren't really there, is what makes you look like such an idiot. The fact that ABX causes people to ignore differences that actually exist is a crime. Prove that it does that. You can't because you know you are lying. If you weren't you'd have proven it already and be dancing a jig in triumph. You want people to use it. It's already being used by audio professionals every day. I don't care if the average audiophile uses it or not. The obligation is yours to prove it is transparent. The fact that it was of the standards of audio research means its transparency has been vetted already. You are the one claiming it it masks things, yet you provide no evidence of this or any of the silly ass claims you've made. I don't expect that to change, you are dishonest and that'snot likely to change. |
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message news  " wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I do not remember- correct me if I'm wrong- you stating that you can "prove" by ABX that someone heard or did not hear something or other. Nor that differences that someone thinks he heard but can no longer hear when ABXing are not "real". Ludovic you're wrong again. No one can't prove that someone didn't hear something. All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something, which of course one can get quite a bit of experience doing if you hang out with golden ears. Additional about your clinching argument: "All you can do is watch them fail to prove that they heard something" A difference. Contrary to your constant drone, such things are possible with ABX. If you'd go to pcabx, YOU could prove that to yourself. Let's do a close up. How could they "prove" to your satisfaction that they did hear whatever you will not give them credit for? Of course; by their success in performance of a positive ABX trial. Am I right or am I right? But we're doing a close up.. The devil is in the details. A small detail: what would be a statistically valid positive outcome you'd accept? When one of the panelists in Greenhill's cable comparison got 83% answers right in a series of 15x6=90 tests there was a storm of protests from your side: "not enough", "we want repeats"- because "everyone" just *knows* that wires is wires. Yes, when somebody gets that close, comparing things for which no difference exists in reality, you want to see if they do better or worse in successive trials. Ditto, when most of his panelists could tell the 1.75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable when pink noise was played but failed to do so with a musical signal. Pink noise is better for that sort of thing, irrespective of the harping from the peanut gallery. That was not an argument that may be, just maybe ABX made ears less sensitive to music. No it's just another demonstration that some signals are better for hearing differences than others. This is well known to audio researchers. No Sir. It proved to your chapel's satisfaction that pink noise, not music was the right way to test how speakers will behave.... playing music. Time to crack on book on why pink noise is better for such a test, but not you, you'd rather bluster about stuff you know noting about. Typical of all the ABX critics. The truth Arny is again and again: there is no "proven" way that subjective perceptions can be "proved" or "disproved". It is your method that needs "proving". And has been to the satisfaction of most audio researchers in the world. SNIP of non relevant B.S. Sorry wrong; they are the in the textbooks of the sore history of medicine- by and large quackery till the middle of the last century. Till YOU prove that ABX has been shown to be a reliable tool to discriminate between audio components you have not a leg to stand on voicing forceful convictions about it. Ludovic Mirabel Until you can prove that ABX masks any differences you haven't a leg to stand on. Until you can prove that ABX reveals any differences, you haven't a leg to stand on. Which people or organizations doing audio research do NOT use ABX or some variant? High end audio manufacturers. Bull****. It is proven that ABX is used to manufacture equipment with reduced quality. More bull****. Failure to respond in a meaningful fashion, noted Once again a rare moment of honesty from Mr. Morein. This is a healthy admission, keep up the good work. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Summing or not summing | Pro Audio | |||
| Summing Box | Pro Audio | |||
| RMS216 Folcrom Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box | Pro Audio | |||
| for the analog summing crowd - what are you using to AD your stereo mix? | Pro Audio | |||
| audiophile summing mixers...who's getting in the game? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
