Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. ScottW |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
ScottW a scris: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. ScottW First of all, there is no box, hence there is no source selector. People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound different/better than A, or that they will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses., not at all adressing the perception of sameness. Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes normal sighted listening. You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ups.com... ScottW a scris: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. ScottW First of all, there is no box, hence there is no source selector. Whats this (as one simple example)? http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. I don't know where these other biases toward not hearing a difference come from. There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound different/better than A, or that they will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses., Eliminate the preference question and the first two possibilities become one. You have 2 possibilities and 2 possible responses. not at all adressing the perception of sameness. Sorry Art...what you describe is not an ABX test. That a simple AB test as described here. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm which does talk some about the difference bias. I've never seen anyone indicate people are biased towards sameness. Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes normal sighted listening. You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem. From a consumer perspective I don't see a problem. As a product developer/tester or researcher...there are questions and unanswered questions usually pose a problem. I'm not ever going to argue that AB or ABX are necessary or even useful (worth the effort) for consumers. ScottW |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question". Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? But that might settle this issue for all time...and then what would RAO be? ScottW |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question". Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? Why not? |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Jenn said: People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? Why not? I'll tell you why not: Because we're getting dangerously close to Krooglishland. Questions don't have "solutions", they have answers. Problems have solutions. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question". Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? Why not? What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components may be audibly different? Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered. Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently a lot less fun. ScottW |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
ScottW wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question". Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? Why not? What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components may be audibly different? Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered. Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently a lot less fun. ScottW ========================================== I agree with Middius. Before you write down a question you need to define the problem And the problem seems to me to be incapable of any useful definition. ScootW asks his question: " What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components may be audibly different? Snag Nr. 1. Does anyone here in rec. audio.opinion want just to know if it is "different" or does he want to hear that it is to decide which one he/she likes better? Snag Nr. 2 Which components sound "audibly different" to which listeners? I probably will not hear much difference between one boom-box car "system" and another. The difference may be glaring to a young car audio lover. { And if I hear the difference it will be outwighed by the overwhelming perception that both are intolerable.) Vice versa for the guy next to me at a red lightr proudly rattling my car windows should he ever listen to my selections for comparison he'd feel they are all equally boring. Similarly glaring differences between flutes heard by Jenn will be a closed book to me. There is no "test protocol" for hearing differences or for liking and disliking. There are only people. All different.. I You say (do you?) that a "test protocol" would help each one of us decide. Perhaps. It is is a subject for research not for affirmation. My inclination is to say that the "test protocol" would have to vary as much as we humans do to accomodate old and young, males and females, chamber music performers and rock-group singers. Putting everyone in a PET Scan box while comparing sounds a shade more promising. I can think of quite a few candidates. I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy. There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place. Ludovic Mirabel |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
wrote in message ps.com... ScottW wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "ScottW" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com ... In article . com, " wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... . ========================== Jenn says: You're not making sense. Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long as you like. Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you put another random checkmark in one of the squares. Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they all sound the same" outcome is assured. But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious musical thinking. Ludovic Mirabel I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be. I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME! If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? To "the question" . It does get kind of amusing at times that people will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question". Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"? Why not? What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components may be audibly different? Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered. Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently a lot less fun. ScottW ========================================== I agree with Middius. Before you write down a question you need to define the problem And the problem seems to me to be incapable of any useful definition. Useful is subjective. ScootW asks his question: " What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components may be audibly different? Snag Nr. 1. Does anyone here in rec. audio.opinion want just to know if it is "different" or does he want to hear that it is to decide which one he/she likes better? Defiinetely the latter...but as Olive demonstrated...the first step is subjective and objective different. Snag Nr. 2 Which components sound "audibly different" to which listeners? Definitely a significant problem in posing the question as I pointed out. I probably will not hear much difference between one boom-box car "system" and another. The difference may be glaring to a young car audio lover. { And if I hear the difference it will be outwighed by the overwhelming perception that both are intolerable.) Vice versa for the guy next to me at a red lightr proudly rattling my car windows should he ever listen to my selections for comparison he'd feel they are all equally boring. Similarly glaring differences between flutes heard by Jenn will be a closed book to me. There is no "test protocol" for hearing differences or for liking and disliking. There are only people. All different.. I You say (do you?) that a "test protocol" would help each one of us decide. Was that part of "the question"? Not as I posed it. Perhaps. It is is a subject for research not for affirmation. Agreed. My inclination is to say that the "test protocol" would have to vary as much as we humans do to accomodate old and young, males and females, chamber music performers and rock-group singers. Agreed. Putting everyone in a PET Scan box while comparing sounds a shade more promising. I can think of quite a few candidates. I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy. Test protocols are always untidy in the compromises they invariable must accept. There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place. It is a bit interesting when one becomes so dismissive of the other while both are codependent. ScottW |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
ScottW a scris: People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias. I don't know where these other biases toward not hearing a difference come from. for one example, a certain professiomal audio clown. There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound different/better than A, or that they will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses., Eliminate the preference question and the first two possibilities become one. You have 2 possibilities and 2 possible responses. No the third response is "I can't tell if it is A or b" not at all adressing the perception of sameness. Sorry Art...what you describe is not an ABX test. That a simple AB test as described here. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm which does talk some about the difference bias. I've never seen anyone indicate people are biased towards sameness. right, if you don't consider borgs to be people. Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes normal sighted listening. You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem. From a consumer perspective I don't see a problem. As a product developer/tester or researcher...there are questions and unanswered questions usually pose a problem. I'm not ever going to argue that AB or ABX are necessary or even useful (worth the effort) for consumers. ScottW |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Clyde Slick said: People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias. You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself, right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote:
dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... You're not making sense. Think harder, Jenn. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
dippy the Kroopologist said: Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... You're not making sense. Think harder, Jenn. Before you wade any further into this snakepit, Jenn, you might want to ask dippy to describe his (no doubt) vast hands-on experience with aBxism rituals. The last time he went into his aBxism apologia, I asked him just that several times. He chose to withhold details of the origins of his impressive first-hand knowledge of the infallible aBxism box even though I asked him several times. I leaped ;-) to the conclusion that dippy, like his fellow travelers Sillybot, duh-Mikey, BozoBorg, and the rest of them, was simply worshipping an imaginary god. Maybe if you ask him, the missing information will be forthcoming. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
The Krooborg shoves aside the amateur preachers and takes hold of the pulpit. ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. Only to a 'borg is being human a "problem". -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
George M. Middius wrote: The Krooborg shoves aside the amateur preachers and takes hold of the pulpit. ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. Only to a 'borg is being human a "problem". - Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. ------------------------------------------------------- Next question: what kind of listener? A 16 year old heavy metal fan or a fifty year old violinist? And next: what kind of bias? Bias in favour of drumming that is music in the deepest Camerrons? Or for Sunday choir singing? Or for the expensive ? Or for the cheapest, because "they all sound the same anyway". Continue as your fancy dictates. If you carry on long enough you'll arrive at a faith and a awitching amulet to fit. Ludovic Mirabel |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of music? I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not. I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it works? Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it, you know... You're not making sense. Think harder, Jenn. Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") 3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on the subject. Not." 4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must say, Dizzy...." 5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm simply asking a question about ABX, am trying to learn, and wondering why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not allowed...." 6. I tell you, accurately, that you're not making sense. You then throw more snot. PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
George M. Middius a scris: Clyde Slick said: People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias. You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself, right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one. I yusta pray to WMATA, my particular commuter God. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger a scris: ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. Damn best stain remover I ever used. You ought to box it up and sell it. |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias. You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself, right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one. This is George's particular form of racist accusation. ScottW |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution? ScottW |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
ScottW a scris: This is George's particular form of racist accusation. Borgs aren't a race. They aren't even a species. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message .com In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution? ScottW Good question. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
The fur is flying now. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one. This is George's particular form of racist accusation. I'm guessing this is the comment you responded to, Scooter. Three questions: 1. Since when are the simple-minded a "race"? 2. Would you volunteer for euthanasia in order to raise the human race's collective IQ? 3. Why did you beg and plead for me to killfile you if you still want to do your simple-minded version of bantering with me? Borgs aren't a race. They aren't even a species. They're species-blind. They even assimilate socially retarded nerds. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: Jenn wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message .com In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution? ScottW Good question. ================================== ScottW/ Jenn exchange: From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution? ScottW Good question. Jenn Indeed. I think of quite a few more problems needing a solution. Most consumers can only listen to one piece of music at a time. My companmy produces a switch that will allow three. This is work in progress. Next edition will cost more. Famous performers fill concert halls. Less known play to half empty auditoriums. The solution is so obvious that I'm not even going to write it down. Most consumers differ in their choice of shoes. Many years ago that wasteful model was remedied in the defunct Soviet Union. Rationalising production the left foot shoes became unobtainable out of Moscow. Regrettably it lasted a few weeks only due to transport problems. Solution ?: a pass to visit Moscow was instituted... For more solutions (and problems) write to: Ludovic Mirabel |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote:
Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves, Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point. 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") 3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on the subject. Not." I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off. 4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must say, Dizzy...." 5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm simply asking a question about ABX, Wrong. am trying to learn, and wondering why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not allowed...." 6. I tell you, accurately, Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn. that you're not making sense. Think harder. You then throw more snot. How ironic. PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything. My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves, Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point. 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") 3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on the subject. Not." I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off. 4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must say, Dizzy...." 5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm simply asking a question about ABX, Wrong. am trying to learn, and wondering why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not allowed...." 6. I tell you, accurately, Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn. that you're not making sense. Think harder. You then throw more snot. How ironic. PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything. My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn. =============================== Mr. Dizzy says: My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn. You're latew Mr. Dizzy. The "Gulliver amongst the Liliputs" seat is already claimed by Mr. Arnold Krueger.. You two mental giants need to settle that between you. Ludovic Mirabel |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of postitive listener differentiation bias, when using test signals and artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what ABX is. Here is what it is not. IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might have such biases) IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of open-ended evaluation) IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only roughly half qualify at H-K) IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference *doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed to) IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training). Furthermore,: ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX box that is no longer available, and whose contacts may/may not audibly influence the sound AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use. Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in product development (which I have a background in, although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what I have concluded: Scientific research: ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where it was first used in audio, in order to determine human threasholds for various forms of distortion, including compression artifacts. It is best used and most sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful research tool...for scientiific inquiry. ABX has very little value in the actual development of audio gear. I've examined the process from several different angels and have concluded it would be useful only in a few cases. Consider these common development scenarios: Practical Development Efforts: * The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for "no difference". How do you screen out poor performers. Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist. No. While some abx testing might give the manufacture some comfort level if all subjects failed to differentiate, the test cannot conclusively prove a negative and cannot even be well-run. * Ditto for the manufacturer who wants to make a spot-on copy of an existing competive product. Same caveat as above. * The manufacture has a new hotshot development engineer/team who completely redesigns a product. And the maufacture wants to know if the product is perceived as better (it had better be, else why spend all that money). In this case, the manufacturer would want to know if their is a difference, but he would much more want to know prefernces that subsume differences. He'd want to know overall preference between old and new, and perhaps between new and some of the competition. He'd not only want to know the extent of preference, he'd also want to examine the reasons for preference among those who preferred the old, and among those who preferred the new. This requires a preference test, which would almost certainly be used instead of an abx-style differentiation test. * I can't think of an instance where a manufacturer would deliberately engineer in a change, and want to know after the fact if it "made a difference" as opposed to "making the product cheaper or better". In other words, the list is exhausted except for almost pure research purposes. And only the Harmon Group and perhaps Panasonic and Sony are large enough to finance such research commercially. Practical Open-Ended Evaluation of Audio Components * The purchaser doesn't really want to buy something "different", they want to buy something if it sounds "better" to them. This requires a preference test. If the purchasers doesn't want to trust his sighted judgement, he can set up a blind or double-blind preference test assuming he can get som assistance, and it will actually be slightly simpler than the abx test. Most consumers will forego such rigourous testing on the basis that they can live with any sighted bias and possitive differentiation bias, and that the more rigorous test is too demaning of time and manpower resources to be worthile. This is doubtless helped by the fact that most audio consumers don't spend a fortune (relative to their income) on their equipment, particularly if they upgrade over time. ABX testing has virtually no useful roll to play in this case, as it is even more cumbersome than a double-blind preference test and provides little or no more in the way of practical and useful information. This assumes, of course, that it has first been actually validated for the purpose of open-ended auditioning of audio components playing music. In addition, an ABX test requires training on the artifacts to be differentiated, and this won't initially be known in open-ended testing. Use of ABX by Reviewers * ABX might be useful for reviewers in an occassional *validation* mode (again if it is itself validated first). But it is far to cumbersome to be used on an ongoing basis for the same reasons as outlined above for consumers. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
ScottW wrote: George M. Middius wrote: Clyde Slick said: People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a difference. People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist. That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias. You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself, right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one. This is George's particular form of racist accusation. There is a difference, toopid. I laugh all of the time at your ignorance. I do not know what your IQ is. I laugh all of the time at your religiosity. I do not know what religion you are (although you claim not to be religious, your attitudes show that you actually are, whether you admit it to yourself or not). Is this racism, or simply laughing at a well-known buffoon? I think most see it as the latter. LOL! Moron. ________________________________________ toopid (n. Woefully Dense): a pitiful, bigoted, unsuccessful little man with fatal mental and cognitive issues who is prone to emotional meltdowns. He cannot distinguish between illogic and emotional appeal. He tries ever-so-hard to play with the big boys but is unsuccessful in that, too. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of postitive listener differentiation bias, when using test signals and artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what ABX is. Here is what it is not. IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might have such biases) IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of open-ended evaluation) IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only roughly half qualify at H-K) IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference *doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed to) IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training). Furthermore,: ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX box that is no longer available, and whose contacts may/may not audibly influence the sound AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use. Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in product development (which I have a background in, although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what I have concluded: Scientific research: ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where it was first used in audio, in order to determine human threasholds for various forms of distortion, including compression artifacts. It is best used and most sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful research tool...for scientiific inquiry. ABX has very little value in the actual development of audio gear. I've examined the process from several different angels and have concluded it would be useful only in a few cases. Consider these common development scenarios: Practical Development Efforts: * The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for "no difference". How do you screen out poor performers. Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist. No. While some abx testing might give the manufacture some comfort level if all subjects failed to differentiate, the test cannot conclusively prove a negative and cannot even be well-run. * Ditto for the manufacturer who wants to make a spot-on copy of an existing competive product. Same caveat as above. * The manufacture has a new hotshot development engineer/team who completely redesigns a product. And the maufacture wants to know if the product is perceived as better (it had better be, else why spend all that money). In this case, the manufacturer would want to know if their is a difference, but he would much more want to know prefernces that subsume differences. He'd want to know overall preference between old and new, and perhaps between new and some of the competition. He'd not only want to know the extent of preference, he'd also want to examine the reasons for preference among those who preferred the old, and among those who preferred the new. This requires a preference test, which would almost certainly be used instead of an abx-style differentiation test. * I can't think of an instance where a manufacturer would deliberately engineer in a change, and want to know after the fact if it "made a difference" as opposed to "making the product cheaper or better". In other words, the list is exhausted except for almost pure research purposes. And only the Harmon Group and perhaps Panasonic and Sony are large enough to finance such research commercially. Practical Open-Ended Evaluation of Audio Components * The purchaser doesn't really want to buy something "different", they want to buy something if it sounds "better" to them. This requires a preference test. If the purchasers doesn't want to trust his sighted judgement, he can set up a blind or double-blind preference test assuming he can get som assistance, and it will actually be slightly simpler than the abx test. Most consumers will forego such rigourous testing on the basis that they can live with any sighted bias and possitive differentiation bias, and that the more rigorous test is too demaning of time and manpower resources to be worthile. This is doubtless helped by the fact that most audio consumers don't spend a fortune (relative to their income) on their equipment, particularly if they upgrade over time. ABX testing has virtually no useful roll to play in this case, as it is even more cumbersome than a double-blind preference test and provides little or no more in the way of practical and useful information. This assumes, of course, that it has first been actually validated for the purpose of open-ended auditioning of audio components playing music. In addition, an ABX test requires training on the artifacts to be differentiated, and this won't initially be known in open-ended testing. Use of ABX by Reviewers * ABX might be useful for reviewers in an occassional *validation* mode (again if it is itself validated first). But it is far to cumbersome to be used on an ongoing basis for the same reasons as outlined above for consumers. ================================== Harry, you just made an excellent exhaustive survey of ABX testing AS APPLIED TO COMPARISON OF MUSICAL REPRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT audio components. It is predictable that it will make no impact in the ABX chapel. The pipedream promise of an infallible consumer guiide to audio is too attractive for a resoned argument. And the scientific test tells that you may just as well listen to your computer whiz loudspeakere "system". In addition most of those who try switching from A to B and then to X soon find that they no longer can tell one piece of music from the other let alone one amp from another. See the notes on "performance" or rather lack of it of most of Sean Olive's subjects who yet knew what they liked best even though their answers to the difference question were abysmally poor.. As for "training"; by the time they are trained for ABX they no longer need the ritual.. They are accurate listeners. All you'll get this time will be a repeat of how good ABX is in audio research. They can't quote any successes in well-planned trials of its application to component comparison. Why? Because none exist Since none exist ABX for audio listeners does not exist either.It is timethe chapel preachers.showed to the professionals that they arew serious researchers. Polemics in RAO are not it. Sheer waste of time and waste of your knowledge and intelligence treating it seriously.. Ludovic Mirabel |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Ludo said: Since none exist ABX for audio listeners does not exist either.It is timethe chapel preachers.showed to the professionals that they arew serious researchers. Polemics in RAO are not it. I believe you've missed the point of aBxism. The true believers know (somehow) that there exists an Ultimate Answer. You haven't proved the aBx box is *not* the Answer; therefore, the faith of the 'borgs is fully justified. You wouldn't be so dismissive of blind faith if you hadn't had your mind poisoned by all that science and logic they teach in medical school. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
dizzy wrote: Jenn wrote: Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow me to summarize for you: Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves, Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point. Well, let's see about that, shall we? 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing. Obviously no bias. 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating in an ABX test....") Obviously no bias. 3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on the subject. Not." No bias. Most would agree that your statement is childish, based on the fact that I never claimed to be "up on the subject." That's why I asked the question. I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off. When have I "spouted off" about ABX? I guess that in your world, one is not allowed to ask questions and try to learn. Too bad. 4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must say, Dizzy...." Again, no bias. 5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm simply asking a question about ABX, Wrong. How does your statement relate to the fact that I was simply asking a question? am trying to learn, and wondering why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not allowed...." 6. I tell you, accurately, Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn. that you're not making sense. Think harder. You then throw more snot. How ironic. PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything. My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn. LOL. Come back when you have something substantial. Again, I was SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION. If you can't deal with it and simply want to hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
" said:
I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy. There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place. And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-) -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn? From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
Sander deWaal said: There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place. And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-) You're free to contract for a lobotomy if that will ease your burden. ;-) -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "ScottW" wrote: If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should... they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening, music, pink noise, etc. That seems like a positive. People here ranting against ABX are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses. Solutions to what? ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias. From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn? From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home consumer. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
The Krooborg is STILL at odds with reality. From a consumer POV [aBxism] doesn't seem like a good solution. Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn? LOL! From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution. Arnii, if the rituals are so wonderful, why is the aBxism religion virtually unknown outside of Usenet? Where are the legions of consumers who will testify to the efficacy of aBxism? The real question most people would ask is why you are so resistant to reality. Of course we on RAO all know the answer to that one. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said: There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place. And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-) You're free to contract for a lobotomy if that will ease your burden. ;-) I carry it with pride and dignity! -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |