Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message . net...
(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.


I never said this. I only said (or at least implied) that if anyone
wants to be really sure about those supposed differences they would do
well to do some DBT work. They do not have to be on the spot and find
themselves shamed if they "fail" to hear differences. They can do the
work themselves with the help of someone who will not laugh at them if
they discover that their ears are not as golden as they previously
thought. Or, if they can get hold of an ABX device they can do the
comparing solo, with nobody around to laugh at them at all.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that some high-end journalists and
sales people have done this and discovered the embarrassing truth.
There is also no doubt in my mind that they kept the results quiet,
either because they would not let loose from their cherished and
long-held beliefs or else they realized what kind of financial issues
would result. How can you sell an expensive amp if it sounds no better
than a cheaper model? How can you laud the performance of an expensive
amp in a product review if it sounds no better than a cheaper model?

However, one need not know whether audible differences are truly
audible in order to be in "hi-fi heaven." The hobby can be a lot of
fun when it is simply supported by speculation. Speculation is often
more fun than knowing for sure, at least with some individuals. In
that case, go ahead and enjoy what you are doing. However, do not
expect to post material here about how ineffective the DBT protocol is
and not get any grief from other individuals. You might not like wht
the ABX Comparator can do, but that does not have any relationship at
all to the actual effectiveness of the device.

You also continue to ignore any
objections to this simplistic faith.


As best I can tell, your objections are that you simply do not like
the results that show up with certain ABX tests, or maybe any other
kind of level-matched DBT comparisons, either.

That's why in the end one gives
in- your eloquence wins.


My "eloquence" is not the issue. The issue is whether the ABX protocol
is as ineffective at doing what it is supposed to do as you claim.

I will not enlarge on what was stated ad nauseam previously. Most
people require ABX training- ask Krueger. Nobody knows how much, when
the traininng is complete if ever, how many are not trainable.


Nobody requires any training. If the individual can or cannot hear
differences, then the test has done its job. Be the participant
blessed with the hearing acuity of a cat or borderline deaf, it has
done its job. Be they well trained or just a casual enthusiast, the
test has done its job. Sure, training is not a bad idea, because if
there are audible differences it will assist an individual in spotting
them. However, all the training in the world will do no good if the
differences are below the threshold of audibility.

The
research to show that ABX does not interfere with their perceptions
does not exist.


Nonsense. How on earth would it interfere with their perceptions? What
you REALLY mean is that it interferes with their preconceptions.

Even the supertrained professionals of Sean Olive's
H-K. listening room varied from 30% correct answers to 80%- and much,
much worse for the panelists in the Stereo Review and Audio listening
tests.


What matters is if each individual can hear differences. Thirty
percent correct seems a bit weird, since guessing should only give
about fifty percent at best. Somebody would have to be screwing around
to only get 30 percent correct.

Olive is a very sharp guy. I find it hard to believe that he produced
a flawed test series. Do you have a site reference for that work he
did?

And so on and on- as before.
Your assertion that if an individual does not hear it with ABX he
will not hear it ever, runs counter to evidence that you do not deign
to consider.


Well, he may think he hears it during a sighted comparison, but I
would like to know just what a sighted test can do to improve listing
acuity, besides allowing the participant's preconceptions to declare a
"winner."

Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
specialists.
Still later angiography and so on became an added investigative
tool.
And what would a competent cardiologist say if you came to him with
an offer of "Listen to A. Next listen to B. Next listen to X and tell
me if X is more like A or B"? I'll leave it to your imagination.


You are making a rather simple procedure (the ABX listening comparison
with audio gear) into something much more complex than it needs to be.
To compare listening to complex musical passages for enjoyment to
listening for very detailed heartbeat differences misses the point.
The fact is that with the ABX series you are doing something without
sight clues that can determine if previous sight clues were coloring
the perceptions. Why on earth would you say that a sighted comparison
would be preferable to doing comparisons blind, if what you are after
is information about audible differences? If you do them sighted there
is no way to prove to anybody (including yourself) whether or not the
sight info colored the results. The ABX protocol (or any other decent
DBT protocol) eliminates that wild-card variable.

The truth is that psychometric DBTs have some resemblance to the
true drug research DBTs. They operate with an artefact and the subject
has to guess correctly. THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REFERENCE POINT.
The DBTs. for comparing components are 100% subjective. Anybody's
guess is as good as anyone else's.


I should hope so, given that the only result that really matters is
whether or not a given individual can hear differences. They can
publish the results of such a series in order to show that the
so-called "profound" differences that certain enthusiasts, certain
sales clerks, and certain journalists say exist are not really all
that "profound." However, the real bottom line is whether or not those
specific participants could hear differences. Whether they could or
could not, for them the test did its job.

If the results means that the participant can safely purchase a $500
amp instead of a $5000 amp, he should be happy. Yeah, I know that some
people want to spend that five grand, because for them doing so may be
a self-esteem and/or prestige issue. However, for a lot of us, saving
$4500 is a big deal.

And since the outcome is decided on
the basis of the majority vote and the majority is only averagely
gifted/trained you get null after null.


While a "majority vote" may mean something if you are going to publish
the results of a large series, the bottom line is what each individual
encountered. If they could hear no differences and everybody else
could, for them the results still are that THEY could hear no
differences. That is all that should matter to THEM.

Good for you if you're happy
with it. But don't tell anyone else that you had a "controlled" with
any validity for anybody.


You mean for anybody else. I'll do that. However, those other people
will at least begin to realize that all the hype some members of the
high end spout about so-called "profound" differences might just be
that: hype.

Not even you.


Dead wrong. For me, the results are definitive. For anybody else
taking such a test the results will be definitive, too - for them.

Because how would you know if
you wouldn't do better without the ABX routines handicapping you?


How would they handicap? You either can hear those differences or you
cannot. Why are you making such a big deal out of a rather simple
process? How is preventing sight information a handicap? Oops, I
forgot. Sight clues allow you to turn the comparison into a popularity
contest, with a favored amp (or set of wires) always mysteriously
coming out on top.

Howard Ferstler

  #202   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...
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.


Why are you so interested in what others have done or should be doing?
Why not just do a series of carefully level matched double blind, or
at least single blind comparisons yourself (it's not THAT hard) and
discover whether you can or cannot hear differences? After all, the
only thing that really matters is whether those differences are
audible to you, and you seem to be very, very interested in whether or
not differences between amps or between wires are audible. If someone
else did a definitive series of "no audible differences" comparisons
and had the results published in the JAES it still would not tell you
if you could have heard differences. Do some comparing yourself, in
order to satisfy you and not somebody else.

Howard Ferstler
  #204   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04...
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

Nousaine said:
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!!!!

I replied:
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.


Marcus comments:
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


This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"
Do not think that this is only the first time this was quoted to Mr.
Marcus or that he made similar statement.
He developed a technique of referring you to source that is difficult
to track in the expectation (well justified in most cases) that
you'll not bother.
As he had done before he'll now probably fall silent for a few months
and then return with more of the same counting on short memories.
I'll let others find appropriate words..
Ludovic Mirabel

  #206   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

Randy said


Question:
I define sight bias as being suggestible to the way a component (or
wire or interconnect etc.) looks, how much the price tag is, what
subjective magazines say, etc.
Do you beleive there is such a thing as "sight bias"?


Yes.

Randy said

If so, is it
something that is limited to a small population, if not, why not?


No. Valid scientific studies have suggested it is not limmited to a small
population.

Randy said

If
you do beleive there is "sight bias", then who should have the
"burden of proof" in proving audible differences in cables, amps, etc.


If one contends their claim is scientifically valid then the one making the
claim bears the burden of proof. That also goes for anyone making a claim of
inaudibility as well. If you are saying it is a scientifically valid claim then
you have to have the scientifically valid evidence to back it up. If you want
to make a global claim of this nature you better have the mountain of ecidence
that would be expected of such a claim.

Randy said

How would you go about it?


Scientifically valid controled tests. Naturally.

Randy said

Do you care?


Yeah.

Randy said

If not, why "debate" Tom
and others?


  #208   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Tom said


Actualy they were all replications of each other


No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.


Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If all
the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall under
that criteria.

Tom said


That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.


Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more than
anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims. As I
said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but are
considered to be good, valid scientific tests.

I said

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???????


I said

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.


Tom said


What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
that
appears to support your position without scrutiny.


Then there is a problem with your perception.

Tom said


You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?


I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.
  #209   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


I said

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.


Howard said


Why are you so interested in what others have done or should be doing?


Why are you not? Why shouldn't I be? At the risk of aounding less than modest,
I am very good at what I do. What I do is not research in audio.

Howard said

have done or should be doing?
Why not just do a series of carefully level matched double blind, or
at least single blind comparisons yourself (it's not THAT hard) and
discover whether you can or cannot hear differences?


1. It is hard to do valid ABX DBTs
2. I don't have the time or the hardware
3. I'm not considering a purchase of any amplifier at this time.

Howard said

After all, the
only thing that really matters is whether those differences are
audible to you,


Well, generally speaking, one could use this point to say there is no need to
bother with DBTs for amps. If one thinks they hear a difference and is happy
with what they think then that's it. Happy camper.

Howard said

and you seem to be very, very interested in whether or
not differences between amps or between wires are audible.


I am interested in it. It isn't very high on things to do list.

Howard said

If someone
else did a definitive series of "no audible differences" comparisons
and had the results published in the JAES it still would not tell you
if you could have heard differences.


That depends on the study. If amps all sound the same provided they are
"competently" designed and built and are operated within their power limmits
then a good, large scale scientific study could offer a very compelling
conclusion about whether or not I can possibly hear differences between such
amps IMO.

Howard said

Do some comparing yourself, in
order to satisfy you and not somebody else.


I did that years ago.

  #211   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On 15 Aug 2003 21:30:55 GMT, (randyb) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT,
(Nousaine) wrote:

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.

That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.


So, how soon can you get here? :-)


Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
the results. Thanks.


We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
which can drive them).

I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.

Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.

The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
at all bothered about driving the Apogees.

As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #212   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
which can drive them).

I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.

Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.

The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
at all bothered about driving the Apogees.

As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton. This is the first post I have seen on
testing on RAHE that was specific to the point of usefulness.. It shows
that excellent products can be had at moderate prices, and that a number of
higher priced products may be noticeasbly inferior.
Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.

Wylie Williams.

  #213   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:fnt%a.127470$cF.34056@rwcrnsc53...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
which can drive them).

I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.

Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.

The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call. Retesting of the Audiolab
8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan, leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
at all bothered about driving the Apogees.

As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton. This is the first post I have seen on
testing on RAHE that was specific to the point of usefulness.. It shows
that excellent products can be had at moderate prices, and that a number of
higher priced products may be noticeasbly inferior.
Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.

Wylie Williams.


I would restrain enthusiasm Mr. Williams if I were you. Mr.
Pinkertons results nwere achieved with his set of musical experience
and preferences, his exposure , his ancillary equipment and above all
his ears and his temporal lobes of the brain.
There is very little likelihood that your results would be anywhere
like his. Look at the record of fivergencies between the participating
individuals in all the "listening tests" available so far.
Only your switch would be identical. Nothing else.
If you're buying I'd redo it all with your own physical and
psychological resources first. You may like whatever Mr. Pinkerton
does or you may not.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #214   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
(S888Wheel)wrote:

..snips.......


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.


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.


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???????


I reviewed two extensive relevant bibliographies published in RAHE by
Mtry Craft and Klaus Rampelman. There was one only (1) published panel
ABX "listening test" in the Stereo Review 1982- of course with a
negative result. Mr' Krueger and his two supertrained ABX codevelopers
published one, too supposedly positive but hardly representative of
the average audiophile crowd.
If you have "2 dozen" please give references (Mag, author, year,
month, page) to a few of them to begin with.
You surely are too responsible to join those who said one ane and all
that they had "many" , "numerous" and when pressed against the wall
kept silent. As for Oakland comparisons of 10 watt DIY Heathkit
against 400 watt Dynaco surely you'll not bring up that one again.(
you did once) It was funny ha ha "positive" anyway. They could tell
the difference, believe it or not.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #215   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.


Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
any time soon.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #216   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On 16 Aug 2003 17:18:15 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

Okay Stewart, you detailed how you selected for a new amp to
use on Tannoy speakers. You tell how in blind testing some had
rough treble or veiled recessed sound etc. And how you found a
couple affordable amps that were indistinguishable from the Krell.

So do you have any idea what about the discernibly different
amps was responsible for the difference in perceptible sound?


Since the tests were done for the express purpose of making a purchase
decision, I did not do any follow-up testing on the rejects.

I am pretty sure on basic thd, frequency response etc. that most
of those amps would have tested below known levels of
audibility especially with fairly easy loads like the Tannoy.


I suspect that the MF unit would have shown a drooping treble, it
really was noticeably 'dull' in sound. I also suspect that the Rega
and the two AV amps would have shown excessive HF IMD and/or crossover
distortion, as these are typical culprits causing rough or bright
treble.

As some people here have asked many times, what objective
specification(s) would have made it possible for you to reject
those other amps without needing a blind test?


For myself, I'd consider it unlikely that I could hear differences
among amps which met the following criteria:

1) Full-power 19/20kHz IMD below -90dB

2) No harmonic distortion above -90dB, from 10Hz to 20kHz
fundamentals, driving full power into a 4-ohm load, with all artifacts
descending smoothly below the noise floor as the output power is
reduced.

3) The ability to drive a 2-ohm load at an output power at least 3
times higher than full power into an 8-ohm load.

Others may have different criteria, and it's certainly possible that
an amp which had noticeably higher THD (but of a benign low-order
nature) would also be sonically impeccable.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #217   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:mJf%a.121814$cF.33270@rwcrnsc53...

And while we're at it, let us note that the man who insists that we
have provided no evidence that anyone can distinguish audio components
using ABX nonetheless claims (wrongly, as we see) that this subject
did so distinguish them? What's the appropriate word for that?

bob


We'll start right here. I'm supposed to "insist " that "we" "have
provided no evidence that ANYONE (my capitals L.M.) can distinguish
audio components using ABX...etc.
My first reaction to the attribution to ME of these stupid beliefs
is outrage. Why should I or indeed anyone be forced to straighten out
boringly and for the nth time someone's travesty?

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".
Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".
Today Marcus chooses to attribute to me the exact opposite of what I
argued for: a strange assertion that NO ONE "..can distinguish the
audio componments using ABX"

But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
winning any which way. Maybe he really *believes* the nonsense he is
voicing loudly..
This is not the first time either- he's a repeater. Look at
the clever-clever but very transparent way he goes about obfuscating
the sense of clear and *emphatic* Greenhill's own words.

Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.
This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout. His
sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others), his
preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
and misunderstood those to boot.
Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners or insist that it is
OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.
Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"
It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
just as productive.
Ludovic Mirabel

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:0%a%a.152106$uu5.23006@sccrnsc04...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:slT_a.146770$uu5.22279@sccrnsc04...
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

Nousaine said:
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!!!!

I replied:
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.

Marcus comments:
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


This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"


Well, yes, obviously. The question is, how small? And here was
Greenhill's answer:

"So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring, comparing, and
listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord
and Monster Cable are indistinguishable from each other with music . .
. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for
exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord."

Do not think that this is only the first time this was quoted to Mr.
Marcus or that he made similar statement.


Nope. I point out your fanciful misinterpretation every time you make
it.

He developed a technique of referring you to source that is difficult
to track in the expectation (well justified in most cases) that
you'll not bother.


I'd be happy to e-mail the article to anyone who asks.

As he had done before he'll now probably fall silent for a few months
and then return with more of the same counting on short memories.
I'll let others find appropriate words..
Ludovic Mirabel


  #218   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many

of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a

component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't

do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of

writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.


"Stewart Pinkerton" replied in message
...
Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
any time soon.


The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being very
fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
brands and models.
This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
what is most surprising is how little specific information they post. Any
nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
specifics. Naturally it has been questioned.
What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there a
code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?

Wylie Williams

  #219   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

In article fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

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


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

Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".


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

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

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


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

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


Again, look who's talking...

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

  #220   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:mJf%a.121814$cF.33270@rwcrnsc53...

And while we're at it, let us note that the man who insists that we
have provided no evidence that anyone can distinguish audio components
using ABX nonetheless claims (wrongly, as we see) that this subject
did so distinguish them? What's the appropriate word for that?

bob


We'll start right here. I'm supposed to "insist " that "we" "have
provided no evidence that ANYONE (my capitals L.M.) can distinguish
audio components using ABX...etc.
My first reaction to the attribution to ME of these stupid beliefs
is outrage. Why should I or indeed anyone be forced to straighten out
boringly and for the nth time someone's travesty?

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


"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

See how silly that argument is? So stop using it.

Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo


Don't hide behind Harry. He may fudge his statistics on occasion, but
he basically knows what he's talking about.

that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".


Who could hear what, that no one else in the test could hear? Nothing.

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

But then another possibility occurs. Maybe he is not just bent on
winning any which way.


Who's trying to win anything? I'm just correcting your mistatements,
and referring people to the original source for confirmation.

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


You mean the part where I quoted him verbatim? Yes, that's a clever
tool of obfuscation.

Surely he couldn't believe that he convinces anyone ...unless he
managed to convince himself first. Perhaps he is no Macchiavelli.
Perhaps he is simply unable to grasp the meaning of a simple text.


Ah...no, I shouldn't, too easy.

This possibility would be in keeping with his stance throughout. His
sending people who know more about the subject than he does for
refresher courses he did so send me, Harry Lavo and some others), his
preaching about what "we" (ie. Marcus) say is the truth about
everything under the sun: electronics, psychometrics, statistics. When
it is quite obvious that eg. he never got beyond the first two
chapters of something like "Introduction to statistics for lawyers"
and misunderstood those to boot.
Would he otherwise talk about statistical "double humps" when
discussing a panel of eleven (yes 11) listeners


Jeez, how many years has it taken you to notice this? Of course, it
was your "interpretation" of Greenhill's data that required a double
hump. So you're the one who has some explaining to do.

or insist that it is
OK to add up all the random (50/50) correct guesses of all the eleven
panelists, good performers' results pulling up the bad ones to get a
group "positive" result to his liking? Thus obfuscating what really
mattered: that a few did hear and most did not.


Yet again, Mr. Mirabel tries to prove the null hypothesis. How many
chapters of "Introduction to Statistics" did he get through?

Or quote a recognition of gross electrical difference between cables
as a "positive Marcus- Ovchain 1,75 db test"
It is a chore to have to restate the same every few months. And
just as productive.


Then spare us.

bob


  #221   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Again, look who's talking...

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


  #222   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

chung wrote:

Wylie Williams wrote:

The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being

very
fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE

tells
me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
brands and models.
This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
what is most surprising is how little specific information they post.


Let me reference you to The Proceedings of the AES 1990 Conference "The Sound
of Audio" which has an analysis and reference list to 23 controlled tests of
power ampliifers; the March 1997 issue of Audio Magazine; the June 1999 Sound &
Vision; the September 1995 issue of Sound & Vision (Canada) for specific
details of controlled listening comparisons.

Any
nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
specifics.


I've listed specifics a number of times. You may be 'new' but specifics are
common. Follow
www.pcabx.com to the smwtms site results.

Naturally it has been questioned.
What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there

a
code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?

Wylie Williams


You want specifics: in 1995 I publlished results in the Canadian Sound & Vision
where hard-core audiophiles were unable to distiniguish zip cord speaker cable
from their audiophile cables in their personal reference systems; I've also
witnessed a audio salon owner fail to reliably identify his kilobuck ampliifers
from a garden variety integrated amplifier in his personal reference system
(not once but twice.)

In 1998 I conducted a 'series-tweak' experiment where I asked 10 audio
enthusiasts to identify a fully-tweaked system (vacumn tube pre-amp, outboard
DAC, Bryston amp, audiophile interconnects and networked audiophile speaker
cables, special cable dress with resonance-absorbers) with a definitely Geak
system (1976 $99 Heathkit preamp, $200 used-Parasound amp, 16 guage car-audio
zip cord speaker cables with a 25-foot length on one channel and 6-feet on the
other with the long run wrapped around the power leads for the electronics and
junk-box interconnects) and not one was able to reliably tell them apart in
single listener sessions.

Need MORE details?



Was there something that you did not like about your amp?

I can tell you how I chose my amp. I was looking for one that can
deliver 200W continuously into 8 ohms, and 400W continuously into 4
ohms. I also wanted it to be stable driving into 2 ohms, if not 1 ohm. I
wanted it to be solid-state because of reliability and quick power-up,
and I wanted to limit the cost to less than $4K in 1990 dollars.

I listened to several well-known ones, and I had trouble telling them
apart when the levels are matched.


OK; finally someone who will admit this.

I finally picked the Aragon 4004 Mk2
because (a) it sounded the same as several models a lot more expensive,
(b) the layout and the construction looked clean to me, and (c) the
specs matched what I need. I have been very happy with the selection.


Perfectly reasonable selection criteria.

Yes, there might be others that would do the job equally well, I am
sure, but once I bought it, I have really not worried about the choice.


No problemo .... as the new California Gov might say.

In the past, when I had test equipment and huge resistive loads
available to me, I also liked to measure amplifiers. I have not checked
the Aragon on the bench that thoroughly, though, since I could not
locate a 2-ohm load and I am too lazy to build one.


Do you have any interesting stories about when you did 'like' to measure
amplifiers?

  #223   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:56:43 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

Your project was a large expenditure of time and energy, which many

of
us are not willing to undertake unless we are in the market for a

component.
But as a hobbist I would like to regularly read about the results of such
tests in hopes that something truly better turned up in the world of high
end. It makes me wonder why reveiwers for the audiophile magazines don't

do
ABX testing. If it were true that "all amps sound alike" reviewers would
not want to publicize that fact because they are in the business of

writing
about differences. But there are diffrences so that reasoning is out, and
their jobs are secure.


"Stewart Pinkerton" replied in message
...
Unfortunately, while there are still many poorly designed amps on sale
at very high prices (almost all of the single-ended triode variety),
there is also a huge raft of very competent designs which I am
reasonably sure would *not* show audible differences in a
level-matched DBT. This would rather cut the rug from under such
'golden eared' reviewers as Martin Colloms and his bizarre points
scoring system, so you're unlikely to see DBTs in the audio ragazines
any time soon.


The problem I have in deciding if I should upgrade my systems's amp is
that I only have access to amps that are reviewed by magazines as being very
fine (Parasound and HALO). As I read it on RAHE these magazine reviews may
not be at all reliable. I may not have been unfortunate enough to have ever
had a well designed amp in my system, and even if I were to borrow a few I
have no idea that they would be amps from the limited group of "competent
designs". I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
find out if these are good guys or bad guys. The only way is to gather a
bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
brands and models.
This leads to a secondary but related point - Given the number of
participants who assure the group repeatedly that they are truly experts,
what is most surprising is how little specific information they post. Any
nunber of people are willing to go into endless detail about why someone
else does not really understand DBT, ABX, cables, wires, jitter, how stupid
audio designers are. etc. etc. etc., but the one post of yours describing
your personal tests of several years ago was the first one that gave
specifics. Naturally it has been questioned.
What can explain the absence of helpful specifics on RAHE? Is there a
code of "Don't ask - Don't tell"?

Wylie Williams


I feel your pain, Wylie, but do you know how many amps there are? I'd
guess most folks here bought their amps some time ago, and are not
constantly upgrading, for obvious reasons. So there's not much reason
for them to be constantly testing new amps.

Fortunately, there's a way for you to get a handle on all of this--do
some
ABX tests comparing the amps you have available to you. If you keep
getting negative results, then you can pretty much assume that you
can't hear a difference between them, at least in the system in which
you'll be using them. (And if they're all the same, they're almost
certainly all "competent." After all, what would be the odds that a
bunch of incompetent amps would all be incompetent in the same way?)

If you get any positive results, well, report back here, and perhaps
some of the experts can offer an explanation as to why, and which amp
might be the underperforming one.

bob
  #224   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

Nousaine wrote:


In the past, when I had test equipment and huge resistive loads
available to me, I also liked to measure amplifiers. I have not checked
the Aragon on the bench that thoroughly, though, since I could not
locate a 2-ohm load and I am too lazy to build one.


Do you have any interesting stories about when you did 'like' to measure
amplifiers?


One unusual amp that I measured was the Carver receiver which had a
"magnetic" amplifier. When driving an 8 ohm load continuously at near
spec'ed power, the amp will make a fairly loud noise as if a transformer
was humming. It was pretty unnerving. IIRC, it did not meet its THD
specs. Also, I noticed a pretty bad design error on that receiver. If
you have a line level source connected to one of its inputs, and the
receiver is powered off while that source is active, the analog switch
at the receiver input will clamp that drive signal to about a diode drop
of ground. This causes tremendous distortion as well as dc shifts at the
output of the driving source which could be driving another receiver/amp.

  #225   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


On 15 Aug 2003 21:30:55 GMT,
(randyb) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message

...
On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT,
(Nousaine) wrote:

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests

had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed

by
Stewart.

That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated

they
remain anecdotal.

So, how soon can you get here? :-)


Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
the results. Thanks.


We were burgled (grrr!) and I had to replace my TV sound system, so I
was in the market for a new amplifier. I had just purchased my Apogee
Duetta Signatures and Krell KSA-50mkII amp, so I had a good
'reference' amp and a tough speaker load with exceptional clarity and
'openness'. I had also settled on Tannoy 633 speakers for the TV
system (in my view, you buy speakers you like, then you buy an amp
which can drive them).

I assembled a 4-pole switch-box with relay connections, and a 3-way
switch enabling me to select A, B or 'X', with X being set by a hidden
toggle switch on the relay box. The 'X' switch had a central 'off'
position, so that each reset used two clicks of the switch. I also
made up a 4-channel attenuator, enabling me to set the gains of each
channel of a pair of stereo amps to be matched within +/- 0.1dB.

Next, I entered negotiations with some local hi-fi dealers, and over a
period of a couple of weeks or so, I was able to borrow a pair of
Denon POA6600 monoblocks, a Hafler XL600, an Arcam Xeta One, a Yamaha
2090, a Yamaha AX-570, A Rega Elex, A Musical Fidelity E600, an
Audiolab 8000A, and an Audiolab 8000P.

I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.


To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch was
made as well. 20 trials is a good number.


The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call.


So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
"toss'' point for the *******, as it were

But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load either.
Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level match
at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.


Retesting of the Audiolab
8000A revealed a *slight* veiling of the sound, but it just crept into
the '16 out of 20' target score, while the Yamaha AX-570, the cheapest
amp on test, was a real surprise. I got 15/20 correct, but only
revealed by a slight treble brightness on viloin solos. The Hafler and
the Audiolab 8000P were sonically identical to the Krell, no better
than 12/20 on original or retest. The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan,


This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to whatever
amplifier which was the comparative reference?) and could be placed in a sealed
cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.

leaving the Audiolab 8000P as the 'winner'.

Interesting that a sonically impeccable product gets rejected for having a
noisy fan Good reason. Better than most.

Truth to tell, on the Tannoy speakers I couldn't hear any significant
deterioration with the AX-570, but I liked the compact size and 'less
is more' approach of the Audiolab, so I stumped up the extra, and it's
still serving me well after about 8 years, as is the venerable Krell.
I should perhaps mention that I'd actually traded in an older 8000P
against the Krell when I bought the Duettas, as the Audiolab got
*very* hot after playing some heavy rock music through these
insensitive 3-ohm monsters. The Krell didn't put out any more power,
but being designed to play continuously into 1 one-ohm load, it wasn't
at all bothered about driving the Apogees.

As a bizarre aside to the above, I published these test results just a
few weeks before the notorious 'Sunshine Trials', where a very vocal
(sadly now deceased) 'audiophile' dealer failed to distinguish his
favourite exotic Pass Labs Aleph 1.2 monoblocs from an old integrated
Yamaha amp (an A-700, IIRC), on his own reference sound system. Steve
Maki and Tom Nousaine proctored this test, and Tom was later accused
of bringing in the Yamaha as a 'ringer', in view of the exceptional
performance of the AX-570 in my own tests. Obviously a gross cheat,
eh, sneaking in a good-sounding $500 integrated amp to beat up a
$12,000 pair of 'designer label' power amps!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


I have a bunch of "ringers"! At most price levels and even ages.


  #226   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(randyb) wrote:



(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...
On 15 Aug 2003 14:34:45 GMT,
(Nousaine) wrote:

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests

had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.

That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.


So, how soon can you get here? :-)


Ok, I have not been around this group that long, but I am pretty well
on the objective side of the fence. My question is that both you,
Stewart and Tom Nousaine seem to be objective, but apparently Stewart
has come up with a different set of results in a DBT. Could you both
elaborate without me searching the archives as to what was tested and
the results. Thanks.


Stewart has posted results that have not been corroborated by the other couple
dozen published controlled listening tests of power amplifiers. There are a
couple reasons that his results may not be extrapolatable. He used a speaker
load that is not widely distributed in the populace and he employed a family
member as proctor. Neither of those conditions necessarily denote
contamination but I don't consider the results as more than anecdotal only
because no other source has replicated them.

Doesn't mean they are wrong but they remain un-duplicated. That's where we
are.

But one should also note that if you fully accept his data and analysis it
tends to confirm that even IF there is an 'amp' sound it's price invariant. So
you don't pad your results by "buying-up" and the features of the product are
likely to be more important to purchase decisions as sound quality.
  #227   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(S888Wheel) wrote:



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.


Tom said


Actualy they were all replications of each other


No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.

My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.


Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If
all
the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall under
that criteria.

Tom said


That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.


Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more
than
anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims. As
I
said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but
are
considered to be good, valid scientific tests.

I said

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???????


I said

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.


Tom said


What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
that
appears to support your position without scrutiny.


Then there is a problem with your perception.

Tom said


You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?


I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.



That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.

You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.

Good fishing.
  #228   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

chung wrote:

...all snipped...

Thanks for the feedback. Fun stuff; unless you bought one, I guess.

  #230   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On 17 Aug 2003 21:42:27 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote:

I have listened mostly to Parasound and HALO, with side trips to
YBA, and HK Citation 1, but RAHE experts tell me that there is no way to
find out if these are good guys or bad guys.


I'd award them white hats, although avoid the YBA 'blue laser' CD
players like the plague!

The only way is to gather a
bunch of amps and do ABX tests for myself. But I don't even know the
identity of amps can be used as reference example of good amps. RAHE tells
me they exist, but nobody can make their fingers hit those keys to name
brands and models.


As you should be aware, I have already stated that I used an old Krell
KSA50 mkII as a reference, and found that the Hafler XL-600 (that
would also include the XL-280) and Audiolab 8000P were sonically
identical to it, even on a very tough speaker load. You could no doubt
also include the Yamaha AX-592, the Roksan Caspian, and the Meridian
551. I am relianbly informed by an impeccable source who won't be
drawn into 'naming names' for professional reasons, that the Hafler
Transnova series is also of impeccable sound quality. Designing a
top-class 60-100 watt amp ain't rocket science in the 21st Century!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #231   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On 18 Aug 2003 05:26:49 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:


I set up a series of 20 trials of each amp, with my wife doing the
switching. She flipped a coin 20 times, and noted on a score sheet
whether it was heads or tails. She set the 'X' switch to A for heads
and B for tails after each test. I'd satisfy myself as to the identity
of X and mark it on a score sheet, my wife would enter the room, reset
the identity of 'X' and leave the room while I conducted the next
test.


To we terminally tweaky/freaky we'd have you leave the room when the switch was
made as well. 20 trials is a good number.


Sorry, I forgot to mention that I turned my back when I called her in
and turned back when she closed the door, to minimise interaction.
There's only one door to that room, so leaving would not IMHO have
improved isolation.

The end result was that the Denons (fave rave reviews in all the rags
at the time) and the Rega were instantly tossed for rough treble, the
MF was instantly tossed for a 'veiled' sound with recessed treble, the
Yamaha 2090 and Arcam were tossed for slightly bright treble, while
the remaining amps were too close to call.


So you have results for all these comparisons? The next obvious question is
what was the reference for any given device? Krell? What was the reference
"toss'' point for the *******, as it were


I don't have the raw scores, but I recall that the the first-round
'*******' were 20/20 - it wasn't that subtle!

The Krell was A for the first round, and B for the second round, and a
score of 15/20 was considered to be significant. The Yamaha AX-570 was
absolutely borderline, and I'm pretty sure that it would have been
indistinguishable on the Tannoys.

But it seems that you didn't confirm frequency response into the load either.
Not a critical issue but one that I generally care for by checking level match
at 100, 1000 and 10,000 Hz.


Agreed that I level-matched at 1kHz only, although I'd previously
checked the Krell as flat from 10Hz to 30kHz. This was part of a
buying decision, so it would have been a waste of time to run checks
on droopy or rising treble for the '*******', as they would still be
tossed!

The Hafler, probably the best
all-rounder as it was very powerful as well as quiet and sonically
impeccable, was rejected on the grounds of its horrendously noisy
cooling fan,


This is a REAL reason for rejection and needs no corollary tests. But if it
was sonically impeccable (I would guess that would be transparent to whatever
amplifier which was the comparative reference?)


Yes, that would be my definition.

and could be placed in a sealed
cabinet or adjacent room it would then be acceptable.


Unfortunately, the wall behind the TV system is an exterior wall (and
13" thick!). Plus of course the Audiolab does the job just fine, and
100 W/channel is more than adequate for these 90dB/w/m speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #232   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

On 18 Aug 2003 14:23:47 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.


I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
of audiophilia.

Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
they simply do not exist.


Stewart. The claim that blind testing desensitises the listener is
easily tested and disposed of. Simply organise an apparently sighted
test, in which the components are apparently swapped visibly, but
which in fact are really swapped to a proper blind protocol.

The subject now has none of the psychological pressures of a blind
test, and should identify with no problem that the differences in
sound do not correlate with the swapped components.

Of course, there is always the chance that the subject would simply
identify the better sound in accordance with what he believed he was
seeing - but that wouldn't happen,now would it?

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #233   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


Tom said


Actualy they were all replications of each other



I said


No they weren't. The equipment, the rooms and the protocol were different in
each test. They certianly weren't replications fo each other.


Tom said


My point isn't that every
amplifier used in every test hasn't been replicated but that many tests had
been published but none of those had results that matched those claimed by
Stewart.



I said


Well. there goes the claim that no test produced an audible difference. If
all
the tests in question have accurately reported the equipment, room and sound
sources used then they are all replicable. I think Stewert's tests fall

under
that criteria.

Tom said


That's OK; but until his results become documented and are replicated they
remain anecdotal.



I said


Sorry but this new criteria of tests having to be "replicated" to be more
than
anecdotal is nonsense. You can make your own rules of evidence up as you go
along but you won't have any established scientific basis for your claims.

As
I
said before, many long term scientific tests have not been "replicated" but
are
considered to be good, valid scientific tests.

I said

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???????


I said

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.


Tom said


What is so interesting is that you appear to be willing to accept anything
that
appears to support your position without scrutiny.


Then there is a problem with your perception.

Tom said


You don't happen to be in the market for a bridge?



I said


I'm not buying any bridges or your personal rules of evidence.




Tom said


That's fair enough; but neither you nor any interested party nor Stewart has
delivered a smoking gun on amp or wire sound.

IF these 'differences' truly existed than there would have been clear
verification by now. This is not a new question nor is in soluable.



If you always choose not to accept evidence of positive tests on the grounds of
"uniqueness" of the results, those results will retain their "uniqueness" every
time they are presented in a new test. Discounting any test on the grounds of
the results is very unscientific. That is a choice you have made. Not me.

Tom said


You are reduced to 'searching' for evidence, any evidence, that seems to
support your position. But you just can't seem to find it and are reduced to
championing anecdotes that look attractive to you.


Nope. I haven't rejected any test on the grounds that the results were
unexpected or unique. That is what you are doing. The fact of the matter is the
question is usually to broad and black and white. When one asks the broad
question "do all amplifiers sound the same?" There are lots of variables beyond
the amps in this question.


Good fishing.




I see you already have your big fish story.
  #234   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
t.net...
(S888Wheel)wrote:

..snips.......


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.

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.


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???????


I reviewed two extensive relevant bibliographies published in RAHE by
Mtry Craft and Klaus Rampelman. There was one only (1) published panel
ABX "listening test" in the Stereo Review 1982- of course with a
negative result. Mr' Krueger and his two supertrained ABX codevelopers
published one, too supposedly positive but hardly representative of
the average audiophile crowd.
If you have "2 dozen" please give references (Mag, author, year,
month, page) to a few of them to begin with.
You surely are too responsible to join those who said one ane and all
that they had "many" , "numerous" and when pressed against the wall
kept silent. As for Oakland comparisons of 10 watt DIY Heathkit
against 400 watt Dynaco surely you'll not bring up that one again.(
you did once) It was funny ha ha "positive" anyway. They could tell
the difference, believe it or not.
Ludovic Mirabel


If you obtain a copy of the Proceedings from the AES 1990 Conference "The Sounf
of Audio" you'll find my paper which provides a listing of 23 blind tests of
power amplifiers that had been published prior to that time.

  #235   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

In article 7dX%a.173729$o%2.82204@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02...
In article fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

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


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

My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
postings over the last two weeks


I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".

Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".


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

Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .


Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

For the rest of your missive all I can say is "Poor Marcus- with
friends like these....".


Let's keep such personal comments out of the group, OK?



  #236   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

S888Wheel wrote:
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.

Tom said


Actualy they were all replications of each other


I said


You know, you probably don't need to do this 'I said/Other person said' stuff.
Most if not all newsreaders audtomatically apply some sort of distingishing marks
for nested quotes. Nor do you have to quote the entire exchange just to respond
to a few lines of it near the end.

--
-S.

  #238   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

Don Pearce wrote in message ...
On 18 Aug 2003 14:23:47 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.


I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
of audiophilia.

Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
they simply do not exist.


Stewart. The claim that blind testing desensitises the listener is
easily tested and disposed of. Simply organise an apparently sighted
test, in which the components are apparently swapped visibly, but
which in fact are really swapped to a proper blind protocol.

The subject now has none of the psychological pressures of a blind
test, and should identify with no problem that the differences in
sound do not correlate with the swapped components.

Of course, there is always the chance that the subject would simply
identify the better sound in accordance with what he believed he was
seeing - but that wouldn't happen,now would it?

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I do not know who "claims that blind tests desensitise the
listener". It certainly is not myself.
Since I do not expect you to read and recall all I had ever said
let me assure you that I always maintained that it would be against
common sense to deny that sighted bias exists. It certainly is a very
powerful factor in this North-American setting. I believe also that
some are more affected by it than the others but that it is a sensible
precaution for everyone to at least have the brand names covered.
All I say is that the ABX protocol, specifically, MAY BE a hurdle for
many. I listed my rasons many times- the main one being that the panel
listening tests to whatever under the audio sun result in a negastive
outcome by a thumping majority.
I proposed a slightly different "test"= in quotation marks because I
see no reason to believe that the individual perceptions of the audio
component differences can be "tested" by one universally acceptable
method. No more than wines, pianos, violins, or human voices.
Using B&W or H-K facilities collect an average audiophile panel and
get them to
ABX music reproduced by dfferent, reputable full range speakers. My
guess is that you'd get a "No difference " majority verdict. And
speakers do sound
different . Don't they?
Ludovic Mirabel

  #239   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:24:11 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.


I am neither a talented nor a super-trained listener (whatever these
expressions are supposed to mean). I'm simply an experienced
audiophile, and one who's discovered (the hard way!) that *sighted*
listening is useless for distinguishing subtle sonic differences. Far
from Ludovic's risible claim that ABX somehow 'desensitises' the ear,
I've found that it is a much *more* sensitive test for subtle but
*real* sonic difference, than anything else I've tried in forty years
of audiophilia.

Unfortunately for Ludovic, there is *no* test which will reliably and
repeatably show sonic differences among 'audiophile' cables, because
they simply do not exist.


Sorry for trying too hard to be nice. I accept it: you're just an
"experienced audiophile" like any other participant in "Stereo Review"
amp. listening test most of whom (but not all) could not hear any
differences between the amps they listened to and just like another
simple "experienced audiophile " Nousaine whom you can not convince
that any comparable amplifiers whatsoever could EVER sound different
and just like that other simple "experienced audiophile" Krueger who
heard once-Lord knows what he can or can not hear these days-
differences between amplifiers that were not on your approved listing.
Of course- if only all of them had your room and your Krell and your,
thick at the waist, Apogees!
No doubt they'd see the light.
As for your favourite topics "cables" and "tests" I understand
that you decreed that there must be a "test" somewhere out there, and
you also decided what constitutes a "test". Correct me if I'm wrong,
so far it is ABX or its variant. You certainly have a fatwa out about
my favourite anti-bias protocol left-right with random changes.
Anything else you'd accept in your "test" canon?
For that matter any other audio components that differ other than
the amps.?
Ludovic Mirabel

  #240   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04...

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

I answered:
Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .


He commented:
Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.


So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
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


This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"

Further Mr. A.Guy reproaches me:
I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".


Here follows a collection of those exposures of my mistakes as
presented by Mr. A. Guy in his previous postings:
"Again, look who's talking..."
"Look who's talking, if the shoe fits..."

"...but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic."

"Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
You"
"That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's."

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

Mr. A. Guy surely you did not expect little me to cope with the
arguments of such conclusive pertinence and brilliancy. You forgot to
say that I'm cross-eyed, hump-backed and a failure with ladies.
But you added a final touch of humour:

" Let's keep such personal comments out of the group, OK?"

Ludovic Mirabel

In article 7dX%a.173729$o%2.82204@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02...
In article fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

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

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

My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
postings over the last two weeks


I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".

Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".

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

Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .


Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crazy market saturation! CatalystX Car Audio 48 February 12th 04 10:18 AM
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION Audio Opinions 0 November 1st 03 09:14 AM
A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency Arny Krueger Audio Opinions 74 October 7th 03 05:56 PM
System balance for LP? MiNE 109 Audio Opinions 41 August 10th 03 07:00 PM
gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out? bryan Car Audio 0 July 3rd 03 05:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"