| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01 (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37. |
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Ludovic said
It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. Audio Guy said Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and built amps. |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
I said
Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Arny said It's an effective way to quash most of the work that has been done, given that most audio magazine editors have a pretty good track record for not publishing articles that disagree with what makes money for them. That shouldn't be an issue for academic publications such as the AESJ and other potentially interested journals of similar stature. Publication in consumer magazines would not really do much to support the merits of any tests IMO. |
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03...
In article IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. Mr. Audio comments: Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while. Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far stink. Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db not heard. Two possibilities as befo 1) There are no differences between anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you guessed it. Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to experimental science. The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is useless for the purpose. Even if a few here and there manage performances out of ordinary. Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler, Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or fraudulent. And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng. I believe), J.G. Holt etc. And so are all those who believe that audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose. And it means that the only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated, are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5% of the earth population on their side so they must be right. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
I said
Tom Nousaine has said numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewart Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and built amps. Stewert said Actually, the MF and Rega designs were real dogs! :-) MF? Musical Fidelity? Some that sounded different were what you would call competent and reasonably well built though yes? Audio Guy said I agree that there have been positive outcome tests, but Elmir seems to think no tests performed so far have been able to show differences. Your argument is with him, not me. I said Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Stewert hasn't published his tests. Stewert said They've been published on this and other Usenet fora several times. Ludovic just likes to exclude tests which don't fit his prejudices. I didn't know you published them. Sorry for the error. I wonder why Tom Nousaine insists that no such results have ever been published then. Maybe he is limiting his definition of "published" To "dead tree" publishing? Tom? |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
I said Not really. Ludovic has been asking for published tests. Arny said It's an effective way to quash most of the work that has been done, given that most audio magazine editors have a pretty good track record for not publishing articles that disagree with what makes money for them. That shouldn't be an issue for academic publications such as the AESJ and other potentially interested journals of similar stature. It's not. At the AES the issue in question was settled years if not decades ago in favor of DBTs. Furthermore, AES publications are scientific, not commercial. Therefore references to commercial products, if relevant, are deleted or concealed. Publication in consumer magazines would not really do much to support the merits of any tests IMO. In the engineering/scientific community, the DBT issue has been settled for years, if not decades in favor of DBTs. |
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:So_Za.86586$cF.27790@rwcrnsc53...
(S888Wheel) wrote in message ... (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... Ludovic said: It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. Audio Guy said Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. Mr. Wheel comments: Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed andbuilt amps. You are getting close to the nub of the argument. It is: " Is ABX a suitable method for comparing audio components?". . Nousaine, an ABX authority, a prolific writer, for many years on ABX "testing", affirms emphatically that no competently etc. etc....amplifiers "reliably" "tested" (ie using ABX) do or can sound different from each other.. But Pinkerton, also a prolific writer on the subject, and another super-trained and experienced authority DOES hear differences. Much would depend upon the speakers. Some speakers put real pressure on amps that would normally have no problems with more "normal" speakers. I believe that Mr. Pinkerton has some pretty demanding speakers. With the more "normal" models I have worked with, I have heard no differences, both with a level-matched ABX procedure and with a non-blind series that still involved matching levels very closely. And, no, you cannot match levels closely using an SPL meter, nor can you do it globally. It has to be done one channel at a time, preferably with a digital volt meter. Admittedly, you can do one channel at a time by ear if you use a pink-noise source, but even that has to be done with care. What does it say about ABX as a "test"? It says that two "experts" with different DNA and differently wired auditory cortex disagree diametrically on what the ABX tells them. See above. A demanding speaker load could probably be the reason for Mr. Pinkerton's situation. Also, I have compared a number of amps, and although most sounded alike (at least at reasonable sound levels that did not clip the smaller amps), one did sound different, at least with pink noise. The difference was subtle, and not too long after I used that amp for testing (it was within an aged JVC receiver) it incinerated itself in my living room. In other words, the only amp that sounded different was an amp that was in serious trouble. If a "test" does not produce repeatable results when handled by two such experts what use is it to the great unwashed audiophile crowd? It gives members of that "crowd" guidelines, as well as an incentive to go discover for themselves if what the sales people and high-end magazine journalists are saying about profound differences in amp performance are really all that audible. My take on the issue is that those who are genuinely concerned about this issue will do their own series of DBT comparisons. If they have problems with the DBT protocol, they can at least do some crude single-blind testing. The trick is to do the comparing with VERY precise level matching. Quick-switching capabilities are also important, although the ability to quick switch will not preclude the individual from doing the comparisons slow. However, quick switching can offer up some rather dramatic evidence about how amps mostly sound alike. Pinkerton dodges the issue with a lame argument: :" Ah, if only he had MY amplifiers to test!". Nousaine keeps diplomatic silence: he committed himself in the past to "there is no amplifier sound" position and has nothing to add or alter- or do you Mr. Nousaine? Why should he? He and the people he has tested have heard no differences. For them the issue is closed. I suggest that you do some genuine DBT work yourself (remember to precisely level match) and come to some conclusions of your own. For you, that approach is superior to harping on assorted, supposedly sub-par DBT comparsions done by others. As for myself I'm with Pinkerton. Of course there are differences between amplifiers and of course I still hear them blinded using my preferred method of simultaneous comparison- but not any longer when using ABX. The DBT protocol employed by the ABX device is pretty foolproof. It eliminates any ability on the part of the participant to have a favored device "win" the face off. Your system seems overly complex, compared to an ABX procedure that is straighforward as hell. You cannot fool the ABX device, and it will not let you fool yourself, either. In that I reproduce the behaviour of the majorities in all of the reported component comparison by an audiophile PANEL. Most (but not all!!!)cannot hear differences between anything whatsoever and anything else. Why a PANEL? Simply because a "test" that its proponents claim is usable by its intended target population should result in at least one positive outcome by a substantial majority, not just a recounting of personal experiences as proof of positive tests. This makes no sense to me. What matters is if an individual can hear differences. That individual need only satisfy himself that he can or cannot hear performance contrasts. And the best way to be absolutely sure of what he can or cannot hear is to do a level-matched DBT. That way, he cannot fool either himself or anybody else. Of course, he may simply not care about comparing closely, and he has a full right to feel that way. But if he REALLY wants to know he might consider the level-matched DBT approach. And what happens in fact? In fact Mirabel hears the differences. So does Pinkerton, To THEM the amplifiers sound different. Well, as I noted, Pinkerton has some demanding speakers. And in my situation I had an amp (receiver) that was in serious trouble. As for you, did you really do the comparisons precisely level matched, with a DBT protocol that kept you from pre-selecting a winner? If you look up Mr Krueger's 10th of August posting you'll see that in the year of Grace 1982 they sounded different to him as well. Since? Who knows. Well, I have pointed out some reasons why amps might sound different. Actually, when I did some of my comparing I deliberately mismatched levels on one channel at a time in order to see what resulted. The results were that the soundstaging changed from amp to amp, and I believe this is one reason some individuals hear those kinds of differences when comparing after doing global level matches with an SPL meter. The global balancing with an SPL meter does not deal with channel imbalances, and it does not match globally all that well, either. On the other hand to Nousaine there are NO differences. In that he agrees with the majority of the ABX panelists tested by one of the ABX codevelopers Mr. Clark in the Â?'83 Stereo Review. I am not sure what else you want. I mean, Nousaine, Clark, and the people they worked with could not hear differences. For them, that is all that matters. You may think that there were audible differences, but for those people the differences were just not there. Perhaps they have sub-par hearing by your standards, but that does not matter - for them. What matters is that they were satisfied that there were no audible differences. Do I claim my personal results as "evidence"? Of course not. Really? From what I have read, I think you most definitely consider your personal results as "evidence." Indeed, if that is the case and you really did precisely level match and do the comparing DBT style, then you have satisfied your requirements, just as Nousaine, Clark, and their subjects satisfied theirs. If you did not do your comparing with precise level matching and you did not do them blind, then I think that Nousaine, Clark, Krueger, etc. have an evidential leg up on you. I'm acquainted with the introductory textbook chapters on how to conduct the scientifically valid, reportable testing. I do not report personal opinions as anything else but opinions. I have no problem with opinions. However, if someone is planning on spending several grand on an amp and intends to do so on the word of a hi-fi sales clerk or based upon the opinions of a high-end magazine writer, or based upon your opinions here, I think they need to realize that they may be spending more than they need to. Sure, they may get a psychological kick out of having a super-duper amp on hand (just like some people enjoy having a 350 horsepower car to commute through city traffic), but the fact is that they could have gotten equal, real-world performance for a lot less money. Now, for some people the aura that surrounds a super amp (or any other "super" product, such as super wires or a super car or a super refrigerator) is often an end in itself. The ownership of such devices makes one feel good (hell, even I feel good about my hardware), and getting involved in an analysis of just what the product can actually do in relation to cheaper versions can possibly undermine the enjoyment of owning such a product. I suppose if someone has the spare cash to easily afford a "super" product this is OK, although if some clerk or product reviewer talks someone into spending critical money on an overkill product that is not a good thing. At least I do not consider it a good thing. Anyway, for me, the squeaky wheel should get the grease, and rather than spend big on an overkill amp, I would rather spend big on super speakers, or a subwoofer, or a killer surround processor, or an HDTV monitor, or extra recordings. But I guess that 99,5% of the earth's population would not hear any differences either under ABX and a few of them writing for RAHE would be quite vehement about THEIR experiences as a PROOF that the 0,5% of us are fraudulent or deluded. Not necessarily. However, for that .5% to be taken seriously by guys like me (and no doubt Misters Nousaine, Clark, and Krueger) they would have to do some valid DBT work themselves. It is nice for that .5% to think that they have some kind of superior hearing acuity (for some, this may be as psychologically important as owning a "super" amp), but for them to be taken seriously by the remaining 99.5%, some valid DBT work would be a good idea. Heck, I should think that members of the ..5% group would be more interested in actually proving that they could hear differences than the rest of us. And their steadfastly negative "test" would stand for "evidence". It is for them. The question for me is: will that .5% group go forth and prove to the rest of the world and to themselves that their golden ears are truly golden? You probably believe that they do not need to, and of course that is correct. However, do not expect me to take their opinions about amp sound, or wire sound, or even speaker sound, seriously. All it proves for certain is that this individual failed while using that particular type of question and answer "test". Others may or may not. Right. And if those "others" want to validate their beliefs regarding amp sound and their golden-eared abilities they can go do some DBT work themselves. If they do not, they may happily enjoy the expensive products they purchase and consider themselves blessed with superior hearing - but skeptics like me will continue to roll our eyes. That it proves nothing else escapes the attention of some of the self- appointed RAHE scientists.who think that a collection of a anecdotes stands for evidence. Actually, those who do casual listening (casual for me means without careful level matching at the very least, with quick switching and the DBT protocol called into play if differences are heard with the initial comparisons) are playing with much more anecdotal evidence than anybody who carefully level matches and goes on to do the comparing DBT style. By your standards, the DBT work done by Nousaine, Clark, Krueger, and even me is anecdotal in nature, simply because the results have not been published in peer-reviewed journals and those results do not agree with what you believe. On the other hand, your "evidence" basically involves comparisons that are unrigorous in the extreme. For me, amp comparisons are not a popularity contest. At least I can claim that my brain behaves like those of the great majority of the component comparison panelists. They too could not hear things when ABXing that they'd have no difficulty hearing normally without ABX earmuffs, Why you think that doing a test blind causes hearing problems is beyond me. That anybody would think that a sighted comparison, without precise level matching is comparable in terms of rigor to even a quick level-matched ABX series simply makes no sense to me. The DBT protocol eliminates sight bias. Just what kind of "bias" do those sighted, non-level-matched comparisons eliminate? like for instance 1,75db volume difference between a thick and a thin cable. You keep talking about this 1.75 dB volume difference. I have compared a lot of cables, and I never encountered this kind of contrast. The cables being compared would have to have radically different lengths and cross sections to generate level differences of that magnitude. Yeah, I know you read about it in an article about ABX comparisons, but why not do some comparing yourself to see if wires behave that way. Howard Ferstler |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03... In article IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. Mr. Audio comments: Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while. Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far stink. Seems you have to make up tests to prove your point. Let's get real, OK? Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db not heard. Here you go misinterpreting statistics again. What discipline were you trained in again? Mine was in electronics including Random Signal Analysis which is chock full of statistics. Two possibilities as befo 1) There are no differences between anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you guessed it. Here you go again. The results just say no differences have yet to be proven. Please refrain from hyperbole, it spoils all of your efforts. Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to experimental science. The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is useless for the purpose. Which science textbook have you been reading? A test that cannot disprove gravity is useless? Even if a few here and there manage performances out of ordinary. Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler, Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or fraudulent. Works for me, I've thought that of them for quite a while. And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng. I believe), J.G. Holt etc. Yep, them too. And so are all those who believe that audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose. Not so, there is a lot of room for discussing the differences in speakers and in sources such as CD vs. LP vs. SACD, etc. There are also amps which are purposed designed to affect the sound such as SETs. And it means that the only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated, are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5% of the earth population on their side so they must be right. No it means that these 0.5% elites are likely mistaken and should take a few DBTs to find out how elite they are. |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:4P7_a.88530$cF.27962@rwcrnsc53...
In article , (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:iRvZa.114292$Ho3.14571@sccrnsc03... In article IelZa.111458$YN5.76804@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: It all is just pointless in the end. One begins by pointing out an easily demonstrable fact that in 30 years of ABXing there is not one single published positive outcome report of a comparison between any electrically comparable audio components by a PANEL of audiophiles. Positive as judged by the reporting proctors. Mr. Audio comments: Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. Now this is an interesting hypothesis. Let's run with it for a while. Suppose you're testing for the possibility of intelligent beings out in the universe. Using the available tests all your results are negative. This leaves two possibilities; 1) No beings as intelligent as earthlings (???) exist out there, or 2) The tests available so far stink. Seems you have to make up tests to prove your point. Let's get real, OK? Mr. A. Guy I'm not I'm making up tests". An astrophysicist called Sagan ( amongst others)wrote a book about experimental search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I'm sorry it didn't come to your attention as yet Since you appeared to have difficulty grasping that a "test" resulting solely in negatives whenever tried by its target population is a bad joke I felt that an analogy (analogy- similarity-resemblance etc)might help. I'm sorry I failed. Perhaps this will help: D.J. Carlstrom, ABX switch manufacturer in the "official" ABX website (www.oakland.edu-djcarlst/abx_bino.htm) writes: "Note that no matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparator can *never* (his italics, L.M.) be use to prove the two audio components sound the same....etc" In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and positive ones do not exist. This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you can see that? As for the rest of your message it speaks for itself. Loud and clear Ludovic Mirabel Now let's get down to our cooncerns from on high. No differences found by PANELS ABXing cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs. Distortion not heard till greater than 2%. Volume difference of 1,75db not heard. Here you go misinterpreting statistics again. What discipline were you trained in again? Mine was in electronics including Random Signal Analysis which is chock full of statistics. Two possibilities as befo 1) There are no differences between anything and anything "competently designed" in audio or 2) Yes, you guessed it. Here you go again. The results just say no differences have yet to be proven. Please refrain from hyperbole, it spoils all of your efforts. Actually this kind of thing is on page1 of introduction to experimental science. The point? A "test" which produces negatives only when used by the majority of the target population, that it is supposed to serve, is useless for the purpose. Which science textbook have you been reading? A test that cannot disprove gravity is useless? Even if a few here and there manage performances out of ordinary. Further, accepting the Audio Guy postulate means that Hafler, Strickland, Manley, Meidtner, Paravicini are either deluded or fraudulent. Works for me, I've thought that of them for quite a while. And so are the critics like Atkinson (an electronics eng. I believe), J.G. Holt etc. Yep, them too. And so are all those who believe that audio. high-end has a meaning and a purpose. Not so, there is a lot of room for discussing the differences in speakers and in sources such as CD vs. LP vs. SACD, etc. There are also amps which are purposed designed to affect the sound such as SETs. And it means that the only clear thinkers, their ears and brains wonderfully vindicated, are those who hear no differences ever. In truth they have some 99,5% of the earth population on their side so they must be right. No it means that these 0.5% elites are likely mistaken and should take a few DBTs to find out how elite they are. |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Audio Guy said
Could it be that in every test performed so far that there really weren't any differences? No, that couldn't possibly be true, now could it? And it would make all of Elmir's posts just pointless in the end. Naw, it couldn't possibly be true. I said Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Tom Nousaine has said numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewert Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and built amps. Tom said Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for replication. So..... its an anecdote. I got the impression from Stewert that his reports were more than anecdotal. I haven't seen the specific posts. Maybe Stewert can offer what you ask. Tom said Give me a replicated controlled test. Is this a mistake in words or a new requirement? You meant replicable didn't you? |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote: Tom Nousaine has said numerous times he has never seen any relaible, varifiable tests that have suggested audible differences when comparing "competently" designed and built amps. OTOH Stewart Pinkerton has reported some positive results in some of his tests between what I suspect would be considered by most if not all to be competently designed and built amps. Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for replication. So..... its an anecdote. I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials') give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also the test methodology and number of trials. The 'reference' room and equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone who wants to replicate my tests. I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report my own findings. Give me a replicated controlled test. Every time! :-) BTW, my bad on the home-build speaker comparisons, I misremembered the Celestion connection as being the sponsoring company, not just the 'reference' speaker. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Stewert said
As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious! AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the catagory of "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so. Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on the grounds of excessive obviousness? |
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:72v_a.137658$uu5.20442@sccrnsc04 Stewert said As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious! AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so. Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on the grounds of excessive obviousness? AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public. Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they don't talk about this a whole lot. |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
et (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53... You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs. Who said that the only path to hi-fi heaven is level-matched DBTs? Google searching shows no hits. Search of the AES papers database shows no hits. I am forced to conclude that this is a straw man argument. |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
(Howard Ferstler) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53... You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs. Nope: it's the best path to verifying audible difference. That's not necessarily the same thing as ' the path to hi-fi heaven'. People can and do define 'hi-fi' heaven by things other than *only* the sound of their systems. But if the question of whether component A *sounds* different from component B is crucial to achieving hi-fi heaven, then DBT would be the *best* way to satisfy that condition. You also continue to ignore any objections to this simplistic faith. That's why in the end one gives in- your eloquence wins. Whereas your empty logorrhea and execrable post formatting wore me out long ago. long snip -S. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Stewert said
As has been noted before, you can't get published in a peer-reviewed technical magazine for pointing out the bleedin' obvious! I said AESJ certainly has published at least one article that only argued the superiority of DBTs over sighted tests. Isn't that in the category of "bleedin' obvious!"??? There is no reason to my knowledge that the AESJ would not publish reports of tests were anyone to try to do so. Can you think of any such Can you think of any such reports that were rejected by the AESJ on the grounds of excessive obviousness? Arny said AFAIK, the activities of the AES Journal Review board are not public. Therefore nobody knows for sure other than the board members and they don't talk about this a whole lot. It is known for sure by certain people. If anyone has any claims that they have submitted reports of such tests to the AESJ that were rejected for publication on the grounds that it was simply too obvious for publication, then any such person is invited to speak up. Till some one does it is nothing more than wild speculation to claim that any such thing has happened. |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:
...snips.... Mr. A. Guy I'm not I'm making up tests". An astrophysicist called Sagan ( amongst others)wrote a book about experimental search for extraterrestrial intelligence. I'm sorry it didn't come to your attention as yet Since you appeared to have difficulty grasping that a "test" resulting solely in negatives whenever tried by its target population is a bad joke I felt that an analogy (analogy- similarity-resemblance etc)might help. I'm sorry I failed. Perhaps this will help: D.J. Carlstrom, ABX switch manufacturer in the "official" ABX website (www.oakland.edu-djcarlst/abx_bino.htm) writes: "Note that no matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparator can *never* (his italics, L.M.) be use to prove the two audio components sound the same....etc" In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and positive ones do not exist. This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you can see that? Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented. NO One' Ever!!!! And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right? Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk' actually IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right. Do it!!!!! Now !!!!! |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Tom said
Give me a replicated controlled test. I said Is this a mistake in words or a new requirement? You meant replicable didn't you? Tom said Good one. But either works  There is a big difference. Many long term medical studies have not been replicated but they are considered good scientific evidence becasue among other things they are replicable. A lot of good evidence is not replicated and is still good evidence. |
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
On 14 Aug 2003 02:06:30 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for replication. So..... its an anecdote. I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials') give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also the test methodology and number of trials. So why not do that again? Because Google exists, and because this was simply done as part of a buying decision, not specifically as a 'scientific' experiment. Hence, I do know which models had statistically significant audible differences (taken as 15 correct out of 20 level-matched time-proximate trials), but I did not document the raw scores. Level-matching was done via a 4-channel attenuator, and time-proximate switching via a relay-controlled ABX switchbox of my own design (long before I had heard of Arny/Clark's device). The 'reference' room and equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone who wants to replicate my tests. Can't do that from a description of your system. Because you haven't given us a way to examine the experiment it remains an anecdote. And there's nothing wrong with that but people like Mr Wheel keep bringing your tests as verification of something or other. Perhaps because my test is better than some, but not as good as others. Such is life. Maybe Ludovic will accept it as "proof." Ludovic accepts nothing which does not fit his prejudices. I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report my own findings. We differ on nothing. Your experiment has not been documented nor replicated. Nothing wrong with that but it's just an anecdote. So replicate it............ Give me a replicated controlled test. Every time! :-) Sure But there were 23 other published experiments by 1990 that suggest yourstated results may have been contaminated or wrong. Anything is possible. Certainly, my insensitive 3-ohm large planar speakers might reveal differences not apparent (or indeed existent) on more conventional speakers. Note this does not make my results 'wrong', just inapplicable to a 90dB/w/m 8-ohm speaker. Again there's nothing inherently bad about anecdotal evidence. It just needs to be replicated. So replicate it............ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote: ..snips.... In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and positive ones do not exist. This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you can see that? Mr. Nousaine comments. Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented. NO One' Ever!!!! According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August 1982) one of his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it out. And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right? Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk' actually IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right. Do it!!!!! Now !!!!! I do not like sheltering behind verbal quibbles ( a la e.g. Mr Krueger in his posts above) but it depends on what you mean by "modest bias controls"". Example: if I tell you that some (not all-by definition) can distinguish, blinded, a silver cable (say Kimber's) from zipcord using full-range musical signal in a left-right protocol with random changes of the cables from side to side you'll probably tell me that this is not enough of bias control. Flawed or not, some (not all- by definition) do work it.. I have, my wife had, 3 of my friends did. Talking about flaws: there are DBTs and DBTs. Drug research DBTs have a validation reference point: patients recover or they don't, the Xray and lab changes return to normal or don't. AND note there there is no possible way in which the METHOD, THE DBT itself could influence the outcomes. The DBTs in psychometric research work with a known introduced artefact: eg. distortion as a validation reference point. You either guess correctly or you don't. The component comparison DBTs. have no verifiable end-point. They are 100% subjective. Anybody's guess is as good as anyone elses. AND no evidence exists that the method itself does not interfere with guessing- but a lot does go to reasonably suspect that it does. Talking about flawed methods: I quoted repeatedly evidence culled from the very ABX sources ( proctors of listening tests, Sean Olive in his H-K "listening room tests and others) that individuals' performances vary wildly when ABXing. So that the final otcomes are decided by a referundum with a majority vote, ignoring (ridiculously!) the few outstanding performers. A comment from you would be of interest. Yes it is all about audible sounds. From the train whistles through codecs to the late quartets of Beethoven. A minor detail: it depends who is listening. So far neither I nor you have a method to measure that. I realise that some people find the uncertainty very upsetting. They feel that there ought to be a law about it or at least a formula in their college textbook Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote: (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53... You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs. Nope: it's the best path to verifying audible difference. That's not necessarily the same thing as ' the path to hi-fi heaven'. People can and do define 'hi-fi' heaven by things other than *only* the sound of their systems. But if the question of whether component A *sounds* different from component B is crucial to achieving hi-fi heaven, then DBT would be the *best* way to satisfy that condition. You also continue to ignore any objections to this simplistic faith. That's why in the end one gives in- your eloquence wins. Whereas your empty logorrhea and execrable post formatting wore me out long ago. long snip -S. Isn't it fortunate for me that not all the literary authorities of your enviable standing share your views? If they did I wouldn't be published and paid for it from the age of 14. Of course I could try to please by imitation and instead of discussion mouth a few more times the same tired, old articles of faith. I doubt though that it would gain me readers or publishers. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . net...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message et (Howard Ferstler) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53... You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs. Who said that the only path to hi-fi heaven is level-matched DBTs? Google searching shows no hits. Search of the AES papers database shows no hits. I am forced to conclude that this is a straw man argument. Apologies for forcing you to do that or anything else. And sorry that my trifling attempt to be readable causes you to react like Queen Victoria: "We're not amused". But thanks for what is trendily called "a close reading". No, this is not a quote. Just an attempt to summarise briefly in a literate way what I read hundreds of times here in RAHE. Last time in Mr. Ferstler posting , here, four days ago. Would you like me to send it to you by email? Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:j4v_a.137673$uu5.20434@sccrnsc04...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:1i7_a.128434$YN5.85971@sccrnsc01... Snip: It's not. At the AES the issue in question was settled years if not decades ago in favor of DBTs. Yes, in favour of RESEARCH DBts. Not component comparison DBTs. Apples and oranges Mr. Krueger. Not to be repetitive see my today's reply to Mr Nousaine. Furthermore, AES publications are scientific, not commercial. Therefore references to commercial products, if relevant, are deleted or concealed. Publication in consumer magazines would not really do much to support the merits of any tests IMO. In the engineering/scientific community, the DBT issue has been settled for years, if not decades in favor of DBTs. Snip my text: It's no secret that Ed Dell was trashing big piles of contributions to The Audio Amateur from SMWTMS members back in the day when we had illusions that he had an open mind. What component comparison text did you submit to him and had it rejected? Ditto for a cable audibility article that was submitted to Audio magazine in a similar timeframe. Now this is an interesting one. You mentioned it a couple of years ago ("ABX- is it useful?" thread) as evidence that ABX is capable of discovering positives AND between comparable interconnects at that.. Do you still believe it? Or did you repent your heresy and I lost an invaluable testimony that these differences can be heard, even when ABXing, by gifted and experienced people like yourself? But all the other published listening tests ( and all of them had more representative panels than Krueger, Clark, Greenhill) resulted in loud ZILCH, negative, "they all sound the same" verdict by thumping majorities. Actually, Clark had nothing at all to do with the Krueger/Greenhill/Carlstrom tests that were published in HFN. Good point. I confused the members of the quartet quoting from memory. I didn't reckon with a stickler for exactitude like you. In addition if I understand your latest messages correctly you to no longer believe that there are differences between electrically comparable amplifiers. I don't know what "electrically comparable" means. Does it mean that both amplifiers plug into 120 VAC receptacles and work? Better point still. Very, very clear answer. Perhaps you wouldn't mind defining what kind of amplifiers are suitable for meaningful comparison in your own words. ABX tells you something different these days from what it did 20 years ago? 20 years ago we heard differences between some equipment that we compared, and we still do. Better and better. Which amplifiers did you compare then and which modern amplifiers would sound different nowadays? Come to grips with it . Surely you're not scared of Nousaine. No experimental work exists to disprove that the ABX method itself is not a problem for many of us. It's no secret that doing ABX tests takes some technical skill and some willingness to put forth a serious effort while listening. I've reduced these factors to a bare minimum with PCABX but that still doesn't help some people. If it were not why would you be offering training those who are not good at it. Is this a thesis that anything that requires training and practice is a bad thing? So much for most sports and most craft hobbies! Mr. Krueger, Mr. Krueger! we're not talking about hobbies or sports. We're talking about a TEST reproducible and repeatable by its target subjects: average audio consumers interested in the reproduction of MUSIC by the components they buy. When do they pass?. What exam? How many are unteachable? Mostly the ones who are looking for vindication of their current beliefs at any cost. When does a pupil know that he is now hearing all he should be hearing? Please see the PCABX "Training Room" web page. What kind of a repeatable test it is that has so many qualifications. So much for most sports and most craft hobbies... We're back to "sports and hobbies. You can't be serious". Music is not "sounds" News to me. Just for you I'll rephrase it: "Music is not just sounds". Like it better? -it is a highly structured product of selected, gifted brainpower. Agreed. And it is not just "heard"- it is processed by other brains. Agreed. All far beyond the JAES reach and intent. Easy to say, hard to prove. Be my guest. But proof by assertion and denial of clear evidence convinces nobody. Till JAES engage in it, which you say they cannot do, the onus of proof that your component comparison tests without any end-reference point, ( and with unselected, untrained panel) are equivalent to their tests- , ALWAYS with a validation reference point,- is of course on you. I'm not holding my breath. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) responds with a smoke screen reply
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote: ..snips.... In other words negative ABX audiophile panel tests prove nothing and positive ones do not exist. This leaves the possibility that the "test" does not test. Hope you can see that? Mr. Nousaine comments. Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented. NO One' Ever!!!! According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August 1982) one of his subjects did that very thing. No; sorry that wasn't the case, now was it? So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it out. And you want people to think that somehow every published experiment (even those that seemed to stack the deck) is wrong and YOU are right? Deliver some evidence to support your argument and then we can talk' actually IF you deliver the evidence than we won't 'talk' I'll admit you were right. Do it!!!!! Now !!!!! I do not like sheltering behind verbal quibbles ( a la e.g. Mr Krueger in his posts above) but it depends on what you mean by "modest bias controls"". Hogwash Ludovic. IF you were right you or someone of your ilk would just produce the experiment that shows this to be true. You aren't right and that's why YOU or any other company or individual hasn't delivered that experiment. Example: if I tell you that some (not all-by definition) can distinguish, blinded, a silver cable (say Kimber's) from zipcord using full-range musical signal in a left-right protocol with random changes of the cables from side to side you'll probably tell me that this is not enough of bias control. Flawed or not, some (not all- by definition) do work it.. I have, my wife had, 3 of my friends did. OK publish the results and the details. Send me the cables and I'll be more than happy to replicate your results. Talking about flaws: there are DBTs and DBTs. Drug research DBTs have a validation reference point: patients recover or they don't, the Xray and lab changes return to normal or don't. AND note there there is no possible way in which the METHOD, THE DBT itself could influence the outcomes. The DBTs in psychometric research work with a known introduced artefact: eg. distortion as a validation reference point. You either guess correctly or you don't. The component comparison DBTs. have no verifiable end-point. They are 100% subjective. Anybody's guess is as good as anyone elses. Oh christ; you are already making MY point. With cables people ARE guessing because there AREN'T true sonic differences. AND YES; your guess is as good as mine AND no evidence exists that the method itself does not interfere with guessing- Actually it promotes "guessing" where subjects can't hear a real difference. OTOH it PROMOTES intense listening and attention to sound alone. but a lot does go to reasonably suspect that it does. Talking about flawed methods: I quoted repeatedly evidence culled from the very ABX sources ( proctors of listening tests, Sean Olive in his H-K "listening room tests and others) that individuals' performances vary wildly when ABXing. So that the final otcomes are decided by a referundum with a majority vote, ignoring (ridiculously!) the few outstanding performers. A comment from you would be of interest. I've examined every test I've ever conducted in excruciating detail to find 'subtle artifacts' that may only be audible to special listeners. So far I've found No Golden Ears. How about you? What do your experiments tell us? Yes it is all about audible sounds. From the train whistles through codecs to the late quartets of Beethoven. A minor detail: it depends who is listening. So far neither I nor you have a method to measure that. I realise that some people find the uncertainty very upsetting. They feel that there ought to be a law about it or at least a formula in their college textbook Ludovic Mirabel Actually you are reinterating ad infinitum the same questions that the developers of the ABX protocol considered when developing the technique. If you have some new evidence to contribute please put it on the table. Your unending criticism of techniques that have been shown to be sonically valid and reliable is simply a form of sour grapes because you don't like existing evidence. |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04...
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... Isn't that funny. No one can ever "prove a negative". So what? We should then ignore the fact that NO ONE has ever produced a single experiment that confirms "amplifier" or "wire" sound with even modest bias controls implemented. NO One' Ever!!!! According to your ABX coworker L. Greenhill (Stereo Review August 1982) one of his subjects did that very thing. So much for "NO one! Ever!!!!!" It is your privilege to disagree with Greenhill- you two ABXers fight it out. Elsewhere today you tell us you are a published writer. Fiction a specialty? Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said no such thing. bob |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
On 14 Aug 2003 02:06:30 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: On 13 Aug 2003 04:01:50 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stewart has 'reported' such but hasn't included enough documentation for replication. So..... its an anecdote. I did in early reports (back in the days of 'The Sunshine Trials') give full details of both the room and all the equipment used, also the test methodology and number of trials. So why not do that again? Because Google exists, and because this was simply done as part of a buying decision, not specifically as a 'scientific' experiment. Hence, I do know which models had statistically significant audible differences (taken as 15 correct out of 20 level-matched time-proximate trials), but I did not document the raw scores. Level-matching was done via a 4-channel attenuator, and time-proximate switching via a relay-controlled ABX switchbox of my own design (long before I had heard of Arny/Clark's device). The 'reference' room and equipment details are still on www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/ for anyone who wants to replicate my tests. Can't do that from a description of your system. Because you haven't given us a way to examine the experiment it remains an anecdote. And there's nothing wrong with that but people like Mr Wheel keep bringing your tests as verification of something or other. Perhaps because my test is better than some, but not as good as others. Such is life. Maybe Ludovic will accept it as "proof." Ludovic accepts nothing which does not fit his prejudices. I know that we differ on the expected outcome, but I can only report my own findings. We differ on nothing. Your experiment has not been documented nor replicated. Nothing wrong with that but it's just an anecdote. So replicate it............ As I said it's pretty hard to do without details. Are you willing to supply an amplifier for verification? Give me a replicated controlled test. Every time! :-) Sure But there were 23 other published experiments by 1990 that suggestyour stated results may have been contaminated or wrong. Anything is possible. Certainly, my insensitive 3-ohm large planar speakers might reveal differences not apparent (or indeed existent) on more conventional speakers. Note this does not make my results 'wrong', just inapplicable to a 90dB/w/m 8-ohm speaker. OK so are you qualifying your results? Or do my low impedance speakers not count? No matter either way; I'm just looking for quanitiable, verifiable results. Yours do not meet that criteria because they haven't been documented nor replicated. I'm all for it; But I can't replicate an 'unknown' experiment. Again there's nothing inherently bad about anecdotal evidence. It just needs to be replicated. So replicate it............ As above; tell me how -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Tom said
Please. I accept any and all "evidence." Stewart's experiments have not been documented nor have they been replicated. The latter isn't his responsibility. The former is. I said The tests in the reports you sent me haven't been replicated either. Doesn't matter. What matters is if the are replicable. Stewert says he has documented his tests. I see no reason to think he is lying. Tom said Oh for Christsakes' as of 1990 there had been been 2 dozen documented and published bias controlled listening tests of power amplifiers that basicallt showed that any device with flat response that wasn't hampered by operating fault or high output impedance were sonically transparent....so why do we need any more evidence on this matter??????? And this emotional outburst has what to do with my post? How many of those tests were "replicated?" If that is the new criteria you are pushing for tests to be valid then it seems you may have very little evidence on the issue at all. that would be cause alone for more testing I would think. If you don't want to test any more then don't. |
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
| FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
| A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
| gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
