| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More from Qaaludeovic
It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..."
is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures.. A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully? Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound different.. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. It would seem a pretty pointless exercise to a Martian. And to me as well.. But in fact it is correct.: They do sound the same. When ABXed.. Which proves the value of "testing" things. the "scientific ", objectivist way.. Which raises this dilemma:: How was it "proven" that they sound the same? By ABXing them of course. But was ABX ever properly researched to establish what *degree* of difference is needed before you can hear it while ABXing.. And what class of listeners are we talking about? Are your results better if you're an ABX trained technician or a professional symphony orchestra member or a rocker, or a man or a woman.? This kind of detail is needed to validate ABX as a proper instrument for differentiating audio components as tools for playing music. Not the pink noise, not the codecs, not phase differences but music. ABX use in research is one thing, Listening to audio is another. Unless you like pink noise and codecs. And is it just possible that when you're being ABX trained are you learning how to cope with:this demanding task "Now I play you A, now B, now X. Is X more like A or B" rather than learning how to sharpen your recognition of differences? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". This is how it is done in any other sphere of life: judging reproduction of paintings, varieties of cheese , wine and yes pianos, flutes and violins.. We are an infinite variety of human beings not testing machines. If you tell me that you tested something double blind ( a very sensible thing to do) or ABXed it and I have no respect for your taste I'll still prefer someone else's unscientific opinion. And no doubt vice-versa.. Ludovic Mirabel A disclaimer.: I have no financial interest in any audio product- though, sometimes,living on the little I managed to save I wish I had. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
More from Qaaludeovic
wrote in message oups.com... It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..." is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures.. A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully? Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound different.. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. It would seem a pretty pointless exercise to a Martian. And to me as well.. But in fact it is correct.: They do sound the same. Be careful, Mirabel. The borgs will miss this irony. They are not programmed to understand natural language. In fact, their favorite response is the infinite "do" loop. When ABXed.. Which proves the value of "testing" things. the "scientific ", objectivist way.. Which raises this dilemma:: How was it "proven" that they sound the same? By ABXing them of course. But was ABX ever properly researched to establish what *degree* of difference is needed before you can hear it while ABXing.. And what class of listeners are we talking about? Are your results better if you're an ABX trained technician or a professional symphony orchestra member or a rocker, or a man or a woman.? This kind of detail is needed to validate ABX as a proper instrument for differentiating audio components as tools for playing music. Not the pink noise, not the codecs, not phase differences but music. ABX use in research is one thing, Listening to audio is another. Unless you like pink noise and codecs. And is it just possible that when you're being ABX trained are you learning how to cope with:this demanding task "Now I play you A, now B, now X. Is X more like A or B" rather than learning how to sharpen your recognition of differences? In that case, the subject generally asks for his tenth cup of coffee. The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". This is how it is done in any other sphere of life: judging reproduction of paintings, varieties of cheese , wine and yes pianos, flutes and violins.. We are an infinite variety of human beings not testing machines. A year or so ago, I made a similar point. To the 'borgs, "preference" is merely a subset of "distinguishability". But pollsters know that the answer to an issue depends upon how the questions are asked. It cannot be assumed that the mind is internally consistent to the extent that the assumed logical relationship holds. IOW, in the case of human beings, it is entirely possible that a test for preference will distinguish better than a test for distinguishability! If you tell me that you tested something double blind ( a very sensible thing to do) or ABXed it and I have no respect for your taste I'll still prefer someone else's unscientific opinion. And no doubt vice-versa.. Personally, I don't care how it was tested, as long as the person who did so has a record of distinguishing the things that I do. We must be able to see the same three primaries. Not everyone on this group can do so. From those I respect, I exclude those who are paralyzed by cognitive dissonance; too based in defensive positions to desire change. This can be either because one is a devoted pseudo-scientist, or because one adores some horribly sounding piece of equipment. The inability to sequester the self exists on both sides of this issue. Ludovic Mirabel A disclaimer.: I have no financial interest in any audio product- though, sometimes,living on the little I managed to save I wish I had. I bought used. My stuff is between 5 and 25 years old. But I don't hate Krell, simply because I am not likely to buy one. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
More from Qaaludeovic
wrote in message
oups.com It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..." is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures.. Mentally speaking Ludovic, AFAIK you were never alive. I still remember laughing myself silly at your proposals that people do listening tests on two pieces of equipment by listening to them at the same time. A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" "Since there's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" I get a feeling that you are *finally* getting it, Ludovic - at least a tiny bit. Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully? Finally, you got this one right! Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound different.. Wrong. You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
A moment of self-awareness from the Krooborg
Arnii, this is quite a breakthrough. It only happens once or maybe twice a year, so I think we should all notice your moment of self-awareness. Mentally speaking Indeed. Good use of the vernacular, Mr. Kroofeces. Oh, and thanks Arnii for admitting you're mental. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
More from Qaaludeovic
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..." is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures.. Mentally speaking Ludovic, AFAIK you were never alive. I still remember laughing myself silly at your proposals that people do listening tests on two pieces of equipment by listening to them at the same time. I remember something else Arny. At the time you were accusing me of promoting a test in competition with your brain-child. It sounded a bit paranoid to me since I kept repeating ad nauseam that that my results when comparing components my way had no validity outside of my listening room and that I had nothing to sell to go with it- no magic switch-box, nothing. As for "laughing silly" I recommended ABX listening to several ladies with bulimia as an easier way to get results than with finger down the throat. They refused: they were so overcome with laughter reading pomposities about how Scientific your "test" is that they never got to the vomiting part. They thought your pretentiuos combativeness about a never research-validated listening method for finding differences with invariably negative "it all sounds the same" published results a true ray of hilarious sunshine in their gloomy lives. Now that I returned your compliments let's get down to the gist. A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" "Since there's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" I get a feeling that you are *finally* getting it, Ludovic - at least a tiny bit. As you observed I did not have your advantages. I did not attend a "good English-speaking college" (would it be in Detroit?). You were not around to direct me when fate sent me to Cambridge (in Cambridgeshire, England) and later to Edinburgh and London to learn my English. I looked to Marlowe, Shakespeare, John Donne,the XVIIIth cent. English "metaphysical" poets, Thackeray, Melville, T,S Elliot and James Joyce to teach me. To think how much time I could have saved if I had your sage advice. True I caught up with you a little during a year's residency in a Brooklyn N.Y. hospital. Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully? Finally, you got this one right! It was an effort but it is nice to be appreciated by a teacher. Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound different.. Wrong. You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. Please, cher maitre, define "reasonable" a little more closely. Would it be you by any chance who decides which controversies are "reasonable"? Give also a few references to the published "reasonable controversies" investigated by ABX with results. Just to please us dimwits. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Damn, you're right again, it is so advanced that up till now I thought that it was utter garbage promoted mainly by two categories of people. 1) Those who never sit down, listen and compare "hi-fi" with their recollection of real live, unamplified musical performance ie. the background noise lovers 2) the vocal kind of electronic engineer who thinks that his final year textbook ended the history of science. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. The two concepts of "we know loudspeakers sound different" and "they should sound the same" is truly beyond my English entitlement. I think you should try it on Sean Olive, D'Agostino and such. They are still stumbling in the dark listening, comparing... http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm No , not again! So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. "Reasonableness" again. A truly well-defined, scientific term from a scientific oracle. A few examples, master?! Ludovic Mirabel I feel forced to undig my Audio Express listening method proposal when I feel more energetic. You already said that I had suggested sighted comparing(untrue). Holding my breath waiting for what you'll think of next. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
More from Qaaludeovic
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is: All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the same, sound the same when tested by ABX. All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX. Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:41:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! Well, let's not open it then. :-) |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
Robert Morein wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is: All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the same, sound the same when tested by ABX. All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX. Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: " All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX." There's no experimental evidence they would sound different under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference. And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the "obvious" would vanish into thin air. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:41:44 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! Well, let's not open it then. :-) Why not? It could be interesting reading. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is: All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the same, sound the same when tested by ABX. All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX. Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: " All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX." There's no experimental evidence they would sound different under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference. And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the "obvious" would vanish into thin air. Ludovic Mirabel It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is: All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the same, sound the same when tested by ABX. All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX. Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: " All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX." There's no experimental evidence they would sound different under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference. And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the "obvious" would vanish into thin air. Ludovic Mirabel It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell. That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable controversy as to whether they sound different. But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed" components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested. This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic, its what's known as a truism. Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't. All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the same. A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed. If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their mission, and its fair to say that they are not well-designed. You mean sounds the same to you or to me? However, just sounding the same is not the only criteria for something being well-designed. The device must also meet the other conventional economic, usability and durability criteria. Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account. Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound different. Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound different. Care to list which is which. :-) http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt.. Just observing what should be obvious. In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those that "we know" will sound the same. Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy. And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long. I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is: All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the same, sound the same when tested by ABX. All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX. Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk belief! No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: " All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound different, sound different when tested by ABX." There's no experimental evidence they would sound different under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference. And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the "obvious" would vanish into thin air. Ludovic Mirabel It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell. That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols. __________________________________________________ ___ That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to your confidential sources is using ABX. I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them. Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally? And of course it would be about comparing components because that is what a lay audio forum is interested in. It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference. And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can. Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth as you've been here. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
wrote in message ups.com... And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel Just remembered; you tried it all once before but it turned out.. you know how. And I'm sure you would not want me to remind you in detail. ABX is typically used when the research question is whether or not listeners can reliably discriminate between two audio products. Typical uses are listening tests on amplifiers, CD-DVD players, cables or high quality audio CODECS (high bit rate AAC, AC-3,etc) I frankly don't do many of these types of comparisons so I seldom use ABX.. instead I use multiple comparisons and measure preference and other sound quality attributes (timbre, spatial, distortion) I have used ABX for testing power amplifiers, where the measured objective and subjective differences were very small. I often include a preference measure with the ABX test in the event that if listeners can reliably identify X, I would also get a measure of which amplifier listeners preferred, and the magnitude of the preference. I have never published any experiments where I used ABX, since you often get a null result which is not very interesting to publish unless you like ****ing off audiophiles who spent $1,000 on their 1 foot interconnects. Since most of my testing and research focuses on loudspeakers and room interactions, the audible differences are sufficiently large that I do not require the use of ABX. My colleague Todd Welti [2] has used a similar triangle protocol (ABC ) to judge audibility of mono versus stereo subwoofers. The use of ABX has been recently reported in AES preprints [1] for tests of SACD (DSD) versus DVD-Audio (PCM )where they found no reliable audible differences in recordings encoded in DSD versus PCM. ABX was also used by Bill Martens and colleagues [3] at McGill to investigate audibility of MONO VERSUS STEREO bass and effects of subwoofer position and lowpass cut-off. ABX is not the only method for determining reliability of audible differences, and certainly not the most efficient. Since it is a 2-AFC method (ie there are 2 possible choices) there is 50% chance of guessing correctly . That means you need to run a reasonability large number of trials to establish a reliable audible difference at a 0.05 significant level. The Triangle Method (ABC) requires listeners to indicate which of the three sounds (ABC) is different. Here there is only a 1/3 chance of guessing correctly, meaning fewer trials are required to establish the same chance probability. This is why Todd Welti chose that method. There could be an argument that 2-AFC is an easier task for the listener than a 3-AFC but there is no real evidence to support it. Another 2-AFC method is the ABC (with hidden reference) that is a ITU-R standard (BS-R 1116.1) that was used for testing high quality codecs. Here A is identified as the reference (uncompressed audio) and B or C is the hidden reference (same as A) and the other is the compressed audio. The method requires listeners to rate B and C using the 5-point impairment scale. There are tons of papers in the AES that describe CODEC test results using this method. For lower quality CODECS (or anything where the audible differences are not in question) there is a new method ITU_R BS1534 (also known as MUSHRA or Multiple Stimulus with Hidden Reference and Anchors) that I use and recommend. It allows listeners compare multiple products at once which has been shown to produce more reliable and discriminating results. For more info I recommend this listening test Tutorial that the AES Technical Committee on Perception and Subjective Evaluation of Audio Signals gave at two recent AES Conventions. The presentations from that tutorial can be downloaded here http://www.aes.org/technical/documen....cfm?docID=168 Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
NYOB says: That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to your confidential sources is using ABX. I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them. Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally? And of course it would be about comparing components because that is what a lay audio forum is interested in. It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference. And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can. Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth as you've been here. __________________________________________________ ___ The subject under discussion is: Quote ONE SINGLE published (any mag. or Journal) report of the use of ABX to comparing components for their music reproduction properties with a POSITIVE outcome ie the majority of panelists differentiated with statistical validity. ATTENTION: We're talking about ABX specifically NOT just DBT. NYOB says: "I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them" Which "them".? DBT is not ABX. ABX is one particular derivative of DBTs. Re BBC 1) You never, never, never posted any "work done by the BBC" mentioning ABX. I hate to call you an unscrupulous, inveterate liar.. All you have to do to nail me is to REPOST 2) you sent me on a wild goose chase in a 10 year catalogue of hundreds of articles about anything under the sun published by the BBC 3) none of them mentioning ABX. Re Nokia (A Finnish cellphone company) Quote a precise reference to ABX being used in audio component comparison by Nokia Re B&O: The only site I wasted time looking for and found discusses propagation of sound. No mention of DBT: no component comparison I asked: Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. NYOB answers: "I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally?" I said: And of course it would be about comparing components because that is what a lay audio forum is interested in. His "answer": "It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference." Yes and Newton investigated sound waves too. But this is about the ABX use in ... etc. etc. I said: And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel NYOB:: "Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can. Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth as you've been here". Words fail me: You persist in showing an incredible combination of bloody cheek with mind-shaking stupidity. Or cold you believe that everyone else is an idiot? YOU say YOU have a method for showing differences between speakers. Have you ever heard what the word *evidence* means?. Of course you have no evidence, .because none exists.. But you have the audacity to send me to find your imaginary, evidence for you. And an incredible lack of courtesy to a busy man directing people to "Sean" ( we ARE familiar aren't we?) to ask him to search for it. What's more this is the second time you're doing this. NYOB - others lost patience with you before me - and no wonder. I said it before but this time I'll stick to it. Till you have something sensible- like real evidence- to say I'll just repost this as an answer to this kind of obnoxious silliness Ludovic Mirabel __________________________________________________ _______________________ |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to your confidential sources is using ABX. I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them. Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally? And of course it would be about comparing components because that is what a lay audio forum is interested in. It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference. And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can. Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth as you've been here. __________________________________________________ ___ The subject under discussion is: Quote ONE SINGLE published (any mag. or Journal) report of the use of ABX to comparing components for their music reproduction properties with a POSITIVE outcome ie the majority of panelists differentiated with statistical validity. ATTENTION: We're talking about ABX specifically NOT just DBT. NYOB says: "I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them" Which "them".? DBT is not ABX. ABX is one particular derivative of DBTs. Re BBC 1) You never, never, never posted any "work done by the BBC" mentioning ABX. I hate to call you an unscrupulous, inveterate liar.. All you have to do to nail me is to REPOST 2) you sent me on a wild goose chase in a 10 year catalogue of hundreds of articles about anything under the sun published by the BBC 3) none of them mentioning ABX. Re Nokia (A Finnish cellphone company) Quote a precise reference to ABX being used in audio component comparison by Nokia Re B&O: The only site I wasted time looking for and found discusses propagation of sound. No mention of DBT: no component comparison I asked: Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. NYOB answers: "I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally?" I said: And of course it would be about comparing components because that is what a lay audio forum is interested in. His "answer": "It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference." Yes and Newton investigated sound waves too. But this is about the ABX use in ... etc. etc. I said: And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no problem distinguishing the components from each other. Ludovic Mirabel NYOB:: "Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can. Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth as you've been here". Words fail me: You persist in showing an incredible combination of bloody cheek with mind-shaking stupidity. Or cold you believe that everyone else is an idiot? YOU say YOU have a method for showing differences between speakers. Have you ever heard what the word *evidence* means?. Of course you have no evidence, .because none exists.. But you have the audacity to send me to find your imaginary, evidence for you. And an incredible lack of courtesy to a busy man directing people to "Sean" ( we ARE familiar aren't we?) to ask him to search for it. What's more this is the second time you're doing this. NYOB - others lost patience with you before me - and no wonder. I said it before but this time I'll stick to it. Till you have something sensible- like real evidence- to say I'll just repost this as an answer to this kind of obnoxious silliness Ludovic Mirabel Since evidence is meaningless to you, you post any ****ing thing you want. If you really cared to find any instead of making specious claims about how o such results exist, I might give a ****. You can lead a man to knowldege, but you can't make him think. __________________________________________________ _______________________ |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
magic in a box
wrote in message oups.com... NYOB says: That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since they both use ABX, among other blind protocols Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to your confidential sources is using ABX. I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use them. Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a scientist like you. Has it dawned on you that perhaps they don't publish the results of their prodcut research? I suggested before that you write to Sean Olive personally and if you ask him nicely, he may just be willing to help you on your quest. |
Linear Mode
