Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may

be
possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
differnces, no change would occur.

Doubtful, and they'd have to endure your misspelling in the instructions on
the box.


  #42   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
few differnces, no change would occur.


"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?



  #43   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
few differnces, no change would occur.


"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component
still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind)
I would select the favored component.


  #44   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any

more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


  #45   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it

may
be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are

so
few differnces, no change would occur.


"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

With the fraudulent form of ABX currently being pushed by liars, poseurs,and
pseudoscientists, it would only cause the listener to miss the genuine
difference that mean all the difference in hifi.
We cannot accept your "sake of discussion" request, because you are a known
liar, arguing in bad faith on behalf of the notorious BAD SCIENTIST and
poseur, Arny Krueger. To accept your request would be a disservice to the
audio community.
Therefore, your request is DENIED.




  #46   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any

more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
rituals.


  #47   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX



Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring the
garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT?


Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred dollars".
If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to alleviate
your crushing idiocy?



..
..
..
..

  #48   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring

the
garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT?


Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred

dollars".
If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to

alleviate
your crushing idiocy?


Currently beyond the capabilities of medicine to increase his mental
capacity.
Perhaps Mikey might be interested in breast enlargement; it's doable.


  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.


It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.


  #50   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any

more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
rituals.

Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I require.
I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
exist.




  #51   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote:
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363

__________________________________________

NYOB rides again. This time he's trailing a string of "references
collected from the files of his Public Library.
His "Case for ABX" is made up of titles such as "The Ears
gears"- the mechano-electrical transduction by hair cells"
But there are a few references that I recognize:
Greenhill on cables. Most of his panel couldn't recognize 1,75 db
difference in volume when ABXing. My old ears tell me when I change
one side by one db.- the image shifts. Overall conclusion: "Cables
don't differ.
.. Masters/Clark on amplifiers. Overall conclusion: No difference
recognized by the ABXing panel between amplifiers
Pohlmann on cdplayers.. This time a triumph for ABX. The very first
cdplayer (Philips 14 bits, soon universally replaced by 16 bits etc.)
identified. No differences heard after that first year product.

He quotes papers by Sean Olive and F. Toole. I have reprints of a few
of them:
"Hearing is believing....". No mention of ABX anywhere in the text
"The modification of timbre..." ditto.
"Listening tests..." Discussion on how to get better listening
tests: several chapters: rooms , material and double blinding- nothing
about ABX.
Sean Olive presented also: " A method for training listeners...".
No mention of ABX.. Emphasis on how much the listeners differ in their
ability to get trained.
There is something disarming about the man. One wonders whether to
blame him or pity him.
Ludovic Mirabel
__________________________________



(1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
(1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns,
http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Those who oppose ABX (not the only double blind protocol for testing audio
differences) say that it is not valid and they have lists of reasons for
their belief.

What they do not have, is any research that some other method is as
revealing or reliable.

Where is the research that clearly demonstrates some other method works as
well or even at all?


  #52   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
are so few differnces, no change would occur.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put it
wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

What speakers do you own?
Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.


Anyway, if I went back to sighted and the 'favored' component
still sounded better sighted (despite sounding the same blind)
I would select the favored component.

I'm not sure I believe you. I think that despite all your protestations,
you are in fact smart enough to know that the illusory sonic improvements
you might perceive from a sighted comparison, are just that.


  #53   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Mikey, have you been eating from Arnii's dinner bowl instead of scouring
the
garden for your food as you're accustomed to doing?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT?


Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
dollars".


Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved
in high end audio.


If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.



And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as
from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.

You don't have any frame of refernce for Normal.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
alleviate
your crushing idiocy?


Isn't it time you did the world a favor and dropped a piano on your head?



  #54   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX



duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.

Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
dollars".


Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons involved
in high end audio.


Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been explained
to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis,
$80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.

If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.


And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound as
from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.


How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you
inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are
"convinced" of without them telling you.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
alleviate your crushing idiocy?


no response from duh-Mikey

How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?






  #55   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
are so few differnces, no change would occur.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have the
same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to put
it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

What speakers do you own?
Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.



Vandersteen 4's

I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight
charge will
be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.




  #56   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.


It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.


  #57   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
rituals.

Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
require.
I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
exist.


Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
differences, fine.


  #58   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
are hearing.



  #59   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any
more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate religious
rituals.

Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
require.
I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
exist.


Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
differences, fine.

That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from being
swayed by bias.



  #60   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there
are so few differnces, no change would occur.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have
the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to
put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

What speakers do you own?
Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.



Vandersteen 4's

I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas freight
charge will
be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.

I must have missed it, where are you moving to?

If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing.




  #61   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.

Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
dollars".


Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons
involved
in high end audio.


Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been
explained
to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000 skis,
$80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.

Those are not Normals.

If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.


And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same sound
as
from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.


How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension you
inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others are
"convinced" of without them telling you.

Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
alleviate your crushing idiocy?


no response from duh-Mikey


How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults?
You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still have
a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do.

How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?


Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership?



  #62   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it
may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that
there are so few differnces, no change would occur.

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.

How do you know if you've never bothered to try?

Suppose for the sake of discussion that you found that you could save
several hundred dollars by doing DBT? Wouldn't it be better to have
the same sound from your electronics and have extra money left over to
put it wher it really counts, with a better quailty speaker system?

First of all, my time is valuable.
There goes the several hundred saved right there.
Also, I doubt that I could improve my speaker situation
for under $5,000, maybe even $10,000.

What speakers do you own?
Have you seen the new NHT Digital speakers in the current issue of SP?
At $6000.00 for the system, they look to be worth every penny, although
there are some very impressive conventional speakers for less than 5K.



Vandersteen 4's

I will have to replace them when I move. No room, and the overseas
freight charge will
be outrageous. And the original boxes were ruined in a flood.

I must have missed it, where are you moving to?


I would rather not say too much about my personal life.

If you get a chance the NHT's look to be amazing.


I will check to see if they are available anywhere near my destination.


  #63   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
are hearing.



So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.


  #64   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any
more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we
don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's about a kind of snake oil called ABX, which you, along with Arny
Krueger, are trying to foist on the audio consumer community.
We won't let you succeed. Consumers will follow us, not you.


Consumers don't have the least interest in following intricate
religious rituals.

Nor do I. Nor are there any involved in a DBT.
I do however like the idea of knowing what I purchase can do what I
require.
I have no wish to pay extra for alleged sonic differences if they don't
exist.


Just listen sighted, if you don't hear any
differences, fine.

That's the problem, sighted listening is least likely to keep me from
being swayed by bias.

You are certainly correct, that IS your problem.


  #65   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose,
but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially,
"we don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
are hearing.



So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.

I have no need, I know what I'm getting.




  #66   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
are hearing.


So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.

I have no need, I know what I'm getting.


You ASSUME you know what you are getting.


  #67   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message
: ...
: snipss you still haven't figure out that it's
: NOT about science.
: Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
:
: It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
: its just not about science.
: its about enjoying the playback of music.
: Its about enjoyment.
:
:
: The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
:
: But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
: to find a satisfying system.
: No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
: are hearing.
:
:
: So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
: DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
: else being equal, or even if that
: satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
: I don't agree with that at all.
:
: Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
: I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every
system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations,
hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial
parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm,
but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not
usually the case.

This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research.
It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in
all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time
keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time,
there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research
field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several
tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/
exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in
the 'big picture'.

From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_.
More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed
by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-)

A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some
experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/
setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test
participants
can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment.

Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in This is where
the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever
more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of
results.
The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not
least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry,
electronics.
Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results
can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt
test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_.

Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off.
large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to
measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of
different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise
limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination.

What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of
different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies.
It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio,
or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with
proper protocol setup.

I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from
what science entails to say:

with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established -
there are thus no differences, no possible preferences
between A and B. this is now an established fact.

RB.




  #68   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
they are hearing.


So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.

I have no need, I know what I'm getting.


You ASSUME you know what you are getting.

Oooooh so close, but no.
I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right.
I'm not getting tubes after all.

I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I ever
heard of ABX for audio.


  #69   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
news

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within
easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get
any more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
they are hearing.


So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals,
yourself.
I have no need, I know what I'm getting.


You ASSUME you know what you are getting.

Oooooh so close, but no.
I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound right.
I'm not getting tubes after all.

I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I
ever heard of ABX for audio.

Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it?
Like use it for making decisions.
DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
having done it yourself.


  #70   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


Ruud Broens wrote:
wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message
: ...
: snipss you still haven't figure out that it's
: NOT about science.
: Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.
:
: It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
: its just not about science.
: its about enjoying the playback of music.
: Its about enjoyment.
:
:
: The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
:
: But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
: to find a satisfying system.
: No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think they
: are hearing.
:
:
: So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
: DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
: else being equal, or even if that
: satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
: I don't agree with that at all.
:
: Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals, yourself.
: I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

When we want to study a system, we soon come to realize nearly every
system is an open system. Thus, if one wants to establish correlations,
hopefully causally linked, it is necessary to keep many circumstantial
parameters that may be deemed of influence controlled. Ideally, all of 'm,
but that presupposes we _do_ know all possible influences, which is not
usually the case.

This is essentially the divide and conquer strategy in scientific research.
It leads to specialization and a sizeable output of findings and models in
all fields of research. So much so, that even a specialist has a hard time
keeping up with the ongoings in his/her field. It is also why at any given time,
there is no homogenous, more or less complete model of the research
field. There are definitions, axioma's, basic 'undisputed models', then several
tentatively proposed new/extention models, finally a wealth of puzzling/
exiting/hard to belief research results that have yet to be encompassed in
the 'big picture'.

From this, it must be clear, there is no such thing as _science says_.
More accurate would be: _current findings seem to indicate_ , followed
by a selection of research results that the speaker happens to favour :-)

A controlled parameter setting, part of methodology and protocol of some
experiment, when dealing with humans, includes doubleblind administering/
setting as there is then no way, directly or indirectly, that the test
participants
can be influenced by knowing what is administered/set up at any moment.

Now we come to the all important part: getting the results in This is where
the 'hard science' has all the advantages, that is, measurements with ever
more precise/less invasive/process changing equipment can give a wealth of
results.
The number of -to be controlled- parameters is not too bad. And last but not
least, there is repeatability. Good fortune then for physics, chemistry,
electronics.
Less so for biology as the number of parameters is rather large, but the results
can at least be measured. As Ludovic has repeatedly pointed out, the dbt
test results in medicine are based on observed results, not _reported effects_.

Scientific research that deals with subjective evaluation is much worse off.
large quantity of parameters, many _inherently_ noncontrollable, not much to
measure, quantify, repeatability often problematic. Hence a large body of
different models, known to be 'ok' within some restrictions or with otherwise
limited scope, no unified theories by any stretch of the imagination.

What makes audio interesting in this respect is that it is at the crossroads of
different disciplines, using different modeling, different strategies.
It therefore makes sense to have a multidisciplinary approach in audio,
or results are bound to be erratic to some degree. And this starts with
proper protocol setup.

I hope it is now selfevident that it is rather a long stretch from
what science entails to say:

with the ABX protocol, no differences could be established -
there are thus no differences, no possible preferences
between A and B. this is now an established fact.

RB.

______________________________________

I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
that it will fall on deaf ears.
You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
deciding which component will play my music best."
Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
checking?"
Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
thread.
Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
not hear in unison with me..
Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
Ludovic Mirabel



  #71   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
k.net...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net

wrote
in message ...


duh! said Mikey, while noshing on a plateful of cockroaches.

Only a moron needs a "test" to show him how to "save several hundred
dollars".


Judging by the price of some high end gear there are lots of morons
involved
in high end audio.


Oh greatly stupid one, you're engaging in a fallacy that has been
explained
to you many times before. Suffice it to say, for the sake of repetition,
that "several hundred dollars" is not a factor for people who buy
high-priced equipment. As a point of reference, they also buy $5000

skis,
$80,000 cars, and $200,000 pieces of jewelry, among other items.

Those are not Normals.

If a Normal wants to "save money", he buys the less expensive option.


And meanwhile they are convinced that they aren't getting the same

sound
as
from themore expenisve stuff, which is probably wrong.


How did you banish reality so thoroughly from that hermetic dimension

you
inhabit? Inquiring minds want to know how you came to know what others

are
"convinced" of without them telling you.

Large healthy doses of fact. You should try it.

God, you are stupid. Isn't it time you took some remedial action to
alleviate your crushing idiocy?


no response from duh-Mikey


How should I respond to another in your endless supply of insults?
You won't stop and you'll still be an asshole and a pig, and I'll still

have
a better idea on how to assembel an audio system than you do.

Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human race.
You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes.
If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were created in the image of
God.
But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who crawled out of the
mud on spiny fins, and belched rank air from a bladder.

How many times have you seen "Forrest Gump"? Do you still tear up when
Hanks drawls about the box of chocolates?


Do you still get all misty when it's time to renew your NAMBLA membership?

What are you doing with my sheep?


  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life
within easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack
apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their
efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't
get any more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I
suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is
essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.
Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.

It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.


The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

But one need not engage in any scientific inquiry
to find a satisfying system.
No, only if they want to make sure they are getting what they think
they are hearing.


So, you say they should abx equipment to ensure that they
DON'T get the one they 'think' sounds best, everything
else being equal, or even if that
satisfaction costs them a little extra money.
I don't agree with that at all.

Not to mention that YOU don't practice the prescribed rituals,
yourself.
I have no need, I know what I'm getting.

You ASSUME you know what you are getting.

Oooooh so close, but no.
I get good information from which to make a good decision from.
Given that there are so few differences anyway, I'm looking for build
quality and features, since it's almost a given, that it will sound
right. I'm not getting tubes after all.

I'd already been introduced to the perils of sighted listening before I
ever heard of ABX for audio.


Why don't you go beyond just having heard of it?

Been there done that.

Like use it for making decisions.


What for? I know what I want and how to get it. I pay for the best
perfromance there is, not the what it looks like, but what it does.

DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
having done it yourself.


I have done it myself. Now I know better.




  #73   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news
Mikey, your Existence is an insult to the whole human
race.
You are the Missing Link that connects us with the apes.
If it weren't for you, we could all imagine we were
created in the image of God.
But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
air from a bladder.


Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the
number of personal attacks around here?

;-)


  #74   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission

On 3 Nov 2005 21:42:40 -0800, wrote:


I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
that it will fall on deaf ears.
You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
deciding which component will play my music best."
Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
checking?"
Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
thread.
Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
not hear in unison with me..
Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
Ludovic Mirabel


Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting. Of course no-one in the ABX camp
will applaud it, or likely even read it through, but that's their
loss. Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day it will
be common.

  #75   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
air from a bladder.


Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce the
number of personal attacks around here?


You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his bladder?
Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks. :-)


  #76   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
oups.com...


Snip...


I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
that it will fall on deaf ears.
You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
deciding which component will play my music best."
Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
checking?"


Before I replied to the original post I did a Google search on the first
listed reference in that post and ended up on an ABX web page. Not only was
that reference there but the entire list - he obviously just copied and
pasted from the ABX page. Why trek all the way down to the Public Library
and actually do some independent research when the ABXers have already done
the research for him?



  #77   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission

"paul packer" wrote in message


Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting.


Only if your IQ is low enough to not spot the logical flaws,
and you have no practical background in the topic so you
can't spot the factual errors.

Of course no-one in
the ABX camp will applaud it, or likely even read it
through, but that's their loss.


It takes a lot of cups of coffee to retain consciousness
while reading Ludovic's highly repetitive and bogus posts.

Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day
it will be common.


Paul, you just flunked another IQ test.

Maybe there is some chemical that will energize your
synapses to the point where bilge like Ludovic's will start
wrinkling your nose.

Ask Paul Domer, in the past he's bragged about his
self-experimentation along these lines. Of course, we're
talking Paul Dormer, so many of us know that none of his
experiments ever bore what most would call fruit.


  #78   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:41:56 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


But you are a replica of our so-distant ancestors, who
crawled out of the mud on spiny fins, and belched rank
air from a bladder.


Isn't it good to see Morien doing what he can to reduce
the number of personal attacks around here?


You don't believe Mike can belch rank air from his
bladder?


Irreelvant. Paul, we're talking about Morien's obvious
hypocrisy here, as well as your's.

You've got your nose how far up Morien's and Middius'
schtick and you don't say *what* about all of their
name-calling?

Ask him to show you. It's one of his best party tricks.
:-)


Gosh this forum was a lot more fun before Middius chased
most of the adults off.


  #79   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Looks like the title I put in this sub-thread was prescient.

DBT's of other subjects are no substitute for
having done it yourself.


I have done it myself. Now I know better.


Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting that "tests" are for losers. ;-)



..
..
..

  #80   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 3 Nov 2005 21:42:40 -0800, wrote:


I read with interest your erudite and well- written message. I fear
that it will fall on deaf ears.
You're not in the sphere of rational argument.. You're dealing with
magical thinking. Like this: "I learnt at school that there is an
equation for auditory wave progression - so there must be a formula for
deciding which component will play my music best."
Hurrah I found it.. It is called ABX. It confirms that differences I
have never been able to hear do not exist. This makes me feel good. I
always knew those golden ears were just trying to put me down.
Now I can show them what science is. I'll go to my Public Library get a
string of references with "audio" or "listening" in the title and call
them "scholarly references to ABX" No mention of ABX in them? Who is
checking?"
Well I checked and found not a single published reference in any mag.
or journal where majority of an ABXing panel heard a difference
between ANY comparable components when music was played. This challenge
has been on the web for the last four years and still is. All we get is
ridiculous catalogues of irrelevancies like the one that opened this
thread.
Simple minds just will not face the simple truth. We're all different,
We all have different abilities and different training/experience and
we all have different expectations from music reproduction. If I heard
or did not hear something does not mean that someone else will hear or
not hear in unison with me..
Amplifiers are physical objects, Some of their properties can be
measured, So are violins. If a virtuoso tells me that he hears
differences between them I'll take his opinion. I wii not ask him to
compete with NYOB in a phony "test" that has never been properly
researched and validated to show that it does help to show differences
rather than obliterate them. To show that it WORKS..
Ludovic Mirabel


Bravo, Ludovic. A spot-on posting. Of course no-one in the ABX camp
will applaud it, or likely even read it through, but that's their
loss. Keep repeating common sense and who knows, maybe one day it will
be common.

Why would anyone applaud Ludo lies?


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
f.S. Tons of cheapgear Cheapgear1 Pro Audio 2 February 23rd 12 03:25 AM
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case Charles Peterson Pro Audio 3 June 24th 05 05:29 PM
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case Geoley Pro Audio 0 December 29th 04 10:47 PM
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V Nexxon Car Audio 0 April 30th 04 07:53 AM
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed Jim Candela Vacuum Tubes 1 September 8th 03 09:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 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"