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

"normanstrong" wrote in message ...
"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
:
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".


(Bob Marcus)
Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

wrote:
"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds

after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

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


Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded.

If one
person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably

identifies a
difference - then it proves a difference exists! The fact that the

others or a
vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test

and THOSE
test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 -

meaningless.

That simply isn't true. All it proves is that the individual in
question got results that can be expected only once out of 20 tries
relying on guesswork alone--approximately 8 correct out of 10 tries.

What conclusion would you draw if an individual got 8 out of 10 wrong!

Norm Strong


Norman, in this particular case (Greenhill) he attempted to establish
some acceptable criteria of statistical validity compatible with
real-life restraints. Basing himself on the "binomial distribution
table" proposed by the ABX developer Carlstrom in his official
"Oakland" ABX website he, Greenhill, said that 12 out of 15 corrects
ie 80% in each one of his 6 tests will be considered "correct".
This means that all his subjects had to undergo 90 tests. Say 6
minutes minimum for each A, then B then X sequence. 9 hours for 6
tests. Nonstop or breaks for R&R, lunch, dinner and sleep?
To me the ABX is part of the problem- not the solution. That largely
explains why, indeed, most individuals do get your "8 out of 10 wrong"
and in my opinion always will. Even if someone finally gets around to
testing full-range speakers against each other. By MUSIC not train
whistles and pink noises
After that there will be nothing left to confirm that "they all sound
the same".
In the meantime please explain how you would improve on your
brother "objectivist" Greenhill's methods.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of

nominal
competence.


I said


Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.


Tom said


Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals
would
have verified one element of competence.


No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the
beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses an
equilizer?


Tom said


Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence?


I said


Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is

the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.



Tom said


I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of
which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a full
set of statistical data and results.


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response. I'm
pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data you
need beyond a 20 out of 20 score.


Tom said


Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is what
it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun.


I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it
more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to.


Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.


I said


Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal
evidence.


Tom said


Anecdotes?


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal and
the scientific community has theirs.

Tom said

I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur
experiment published in 1980 have you?


I have not so far.

Tom said


Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."?


Scientifically speaking, yep.


I said


I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than the
ones you like.


Tom said


But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone
duplicated that?


Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you
should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions. No matter how you dress
it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you
choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a
flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept other than the
results.


Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?

Tom said


I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion
experiment.


IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the
fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific.
  #284   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
:
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".


Marcus commented:
Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
"Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after
megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing."

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

You replied:
Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded. If one
person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a
difference - then it proves a difference exists! The fact that the others or a
vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE
test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless.

So why aren't there any blind tests published which show differences?
(1) Blind testing seems to filter out subtle audible differences. Even the
experts agree that music is not a very sensitive source and it is the only
meaningful one to audiophiles.
(2) The only people who care about blind testing are the "debunkers" who are
trying to show "there are no differences" to the unwashed audiophile masses
(most of whom couldn't care less)
Regards,
Mike


Anyone who believes that another cold cure, competing with your
grandmother's own prescription, is a good analogy to differentiating
(a preliminary step to preferring) between the components' rendition
of the sound of Glenn Gould's playing piano or Bartoli singing is
beyond your reach.
Marcus chose for his analogy an illness that lasts 72 hours
with any "treatment" and 3 days without it.
Anyone who compares the *objective, verifiable* amount of nasal
discharge and Kleenex used before and after to the 100% subjective,
unverifiable act of hearing or not hearing the difference between a
VTL and a Krell is beyond reach.
Anyone who believes that comparing components is a "test of
hearing" is beyond reach.
Anyone who believes that the verdict about individual sensory
perceptions can be reached by a "test" known to depend on training,
ability for this particular "test", individal musical experience,age,
gender and so on and on is beyond reach. Especially if he says that
noting the occasional good performer is "cherry-picking", Especially
when he pole-vaults over a plain, emphatic text of
Greenhill's , justifiably hoping that most will not notice the
acrobatics.
Anyone who does not wonder why other areas of sensory
perceptions, wines, musical instruments, reproductions of paintings,
photography, rely on "cherry-picked" expertise and not a "test" is
beyond reach.
The answer as to why audio should be selected for a subject
for such "science" by such scienrists must be largely speculative.
Partly it may be because some people with superficial acquaintance
with the way science works(usually the not particularly creative
ones), believe that their school textbook is the end of history.
Some others don't particularly care about the hobby of trying to get
the closest possible to the live unamplified sound ( nothing
dishonourable about it - many musicians don't either). However being
members of consumer society where keeping up with Joneses does matter
terribly, they are unhappy if told that "mine" is not quite as good
as Jones' and are delighted to hear that there is a "test" to show
that "it all sounds the same.
It is rather interesting that some of those who shout
loudest will
not disclose what they are listening to at home. And how did ABX
assist them selecting it.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

...large snips....

Some others don't particularly care about the hobby of trying to get
the closest possible to the live unamplified sound ( nothing
dishonourable about it - many musicians don't either).


Quite a borad brush stroke here. IMO those who care most about acoustically
realistic home reproduction get the most realistic and maximal quantity of high
quality throughput do not waste resources in areas that garner no acoustic
advantage.

For example I'd much rather have full bandwidth low frequency capability than
expensive wires or pricey tubed amplifiers because the latter either offer no
improvement or a reduction in reproduction accuracy.

However being
members of consumer society where keeping up with Joneses does matter
terribly, they are unhappy if told that "mine" is not quite as good
as Jones' and are delighted to hear that there is a "test" to show
that "it all sounds the same.


What is interesting about that argument is that only nominally competent cd
players, amplifiers and wires have been shown to sound the same. No one has
even suggested that all rooms, all speakers, all speaker placements, all
acoustical treatments or all programs sound the same. There are plenty of
avenues for improving the sound quality of one's system that have more positive
potential than contemplating your wires.

It is rather interesting that some of those who shout
loudest will
not disclose what they are listening to at home. And how did ABX
assist them selecting it.
Ludovic Mirabel


So where is your disclosure? I presently own 10 nominally competent 2-channel
amplifiers (down from a dozen 2 years ago) but only ONE of them appears in my
main system. Why?

Because I use active speakers that employ electronic means to improve the
reproduction of the transducers in the speakers and to provide precisely sized
amplification and protective circuitry.

Even the single outboard amplifier is in the subwoofer system which also uses
parametric EQ to optimize response at the listening system. IOW it is part of
an active loudspeaker system itself.

What are the others used for? Two in my bedroom system; 4 in bench/lab
measurement systems and the remainder for special applications when needed.

Guess what? Each of them sounds exactly like the others when used within their
output limits (50 to 5000 watts; ages 4 to 28 years; weight under 10 to 80 lbs;
size tiny to real big; style odd to dumb; ability to keep-up with the Jones' or
Mirabels' unsurpassed.



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

wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

Yes I know what "masking" is in Webster and I can guess that in your
dictionary music masks the component differences. YOUR dictionary
because Everett's and Worrall's textbooks of acoustics are no help.


It is not an acoustical issue. It is and AUDIOLOGY issue. (i.e. how humans
hear) Something you have ambly demonstrated that you are barely interested
in, (or not at all) yet you endlessly spout that the researchers are
wrong. (until you get an opporitunity to deny it, as I expect you will if
you respond to this post) You have lots of practice so get on it! ;-)

wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

Yes I know what "masking" is in Webster and I can guess that in your
dictionary music masks the component differences. YOUR dictionary
because Everett's and Worrall's textbooks of acoustics are no help.


It is not an acoustical issue. It is and AUDIOLOGY issue. (i.e. how
humans hear) Something you have ambly demonstrated that you are
barely interested in, (or not at all)...


You are right . I have next to no interest in audiology. No more than
I have in optics when playing at telling a Picasso from a Braque
without looking at signatures. Life is too short to know a little bit
of everything.

... yet you endlessly spout that the
researchers are wrong. (until you get an opporitunity to deny it, as I
expect you will if you respond to this post) You have lots of practice
so get on it! ;-)


Quote one single sentence of mine "spouting that the researchers are
wrong".
But there definitely IS something wrong with using a buzz word to
pretend that researchers proved whatever views you want us to smuggle
in: is it that music is the wrong signal for assessing musical
properties of a component? Or is it something else? You don't say so
I'm trying hard to make any sense out of your missive other than
obvious, violent displeasure with my views.
Waiting to hear a quote from "researchers" discussing component
comparison by ABX.
Pleasant dreams Ludovic Mirabel

If
music is badly suited for ABX or ABX for music ABX is not much help to
high-enders- is it.


That test was a good demonstration of masking. But it is useless engaging
in a 'discussion' with somebody who has shown NO interest in what it is.

When you stop yawning you might condescend to enlighten us peasants.
Otherwise we might think that you're masking conceited ignorance with
a meaningless buzzword.


Are you really this lazy? Search 'audio masking' in google. But then
you're the one who's arguing about something that you have demonstrated you
have no interest in. I'll let that speak for itself about who is conceited
and ignorant.


If
music is badly suited for ABX or ABX for music ABX is not much help to
high-enders- is it.


That test was a good demonstration of masking. But it is useless engaging
in a 'discussion' with somebody who has shown NO interest in what it is.


When you stop yawning you might condescend to enlighten us peasants.
Otherwise we might think that you're masking conceited ignorance with
a meaningless buzzword.


Are you really this lazy? Search 'audio masking' in google. But then
you're the one who's arguing about something that you have demonstrated you
have no interest in. I'll let that speak for itself about who is conceited
and ignorant.


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

(S888Wheel) wrote:

Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of

nominal
competence.


I said


Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.


Tom said


Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals
would
have verified one element of competence.


No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the
beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses
an
equilizer?


If the amplifier is not transparent by itself then an equalizer could remedy
that incompetence.

The best use of an equalizer is to enhance competence but like any tool is
could be inappropriately used.

Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.

And that you noticed differences in the sound of this device compared to
another device with a low output impedance and no deviations measured at the
speaker terminals.

Now; you put a series resistor in the speaker line for the 2nd device and they
now cannot be distinguished sonically and you, personally preferred the sound
of the devices when response matched.

So who has EQ'd what and what difference does any of that make? I'd day your
preference is just fine but if you want me to believe that high output
impedance devices that introduce response deviations is somehow improving the
delivered performance I would argue the point.

It's no different from just cranking up the bass and treble controls on your
preamp because you 'like' the sound that way.


Tom said


Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining

evidence?

I said


Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In

your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is

the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.



Tom said


I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of
which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a

full
set of statistical data and results.


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response.


You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was
completely reported. Why not obtain some of these.

I'm
pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data you
need beyond a 20 out of 20 score.


Well Steve Zipser told me that he regularly scored 19/20 and 20/20 in blind
tests; but when I put him to the test he scored 3/10.

Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.

And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


Tom said


Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is

what
it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun.


I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it
more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to.


Given equal weighting those results are still two dozen to 1 and haven't been
replicated.



Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.


I said


Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal
evidence.


It's interesting that you seem to completely lack an interest in the available
evidence on the subject and a complete reluctance to acquire any evidence on
your own.

Tom said


Anecdotes?


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal
and
the scientific community has theirs.


And YOU speak for the scientific community?


Tom said

I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur
experiment published in 1980 have you?


I have not so far.

Tom said


Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."?


Scientifically speaking, yep.


And you are qualified to comment on them 'scientifically?'

I said


I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than

the
ones you like.


Tom said


But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone
duplicated that?


Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you
should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions.


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.

No matter how you
dress
it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you
choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a
flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept other than
the
results.


Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description of
the data.

Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's
viewed favorably by YOU?



Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?


No. That seems to be your problem. I'm saying that this single report has never
been duplicated by anyone else among the couple dozen published experiments.
Why not?

And in the last analysis if I said to you that a certain medicine had a great
effect in one experiment but not in two dozen others how are you going to
'weight' the results?


Tom said


I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion
experiment.


IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the
fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific.


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results you
wanted?
  #289   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Many snips-mostly my own previous text.
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

Nousaine:
It doesn't need an objective reference point. It only needs to confirm that
subjects had reliable scores that showed they heard a difference.
Isn't that your position.....common objective measurements fail to reveal real
audible differences?

You're pleased to call ABXing a "common objective measurement" No, it
is not. It is just ABX- manifestly a method that some adapt to "by
talent" (to quote Greenhill) or training and others do not by lack of
talent or lack of training.
Translate: 99,5% of audiophiles.

This is certainly not true. There were no individuals in that test that
reliably demonstrated an ability to differentiate those wires with music.

Mr. Nousaine this is your opinion. It happens to run counter to the
opinion of
immaculately objectivist Greenhill, who said he found a "golden ear"
distinguishing cables when pink noise was the signal.
But suddenly you change sides and agree with me that musical signal
only is what matters. Pink noise no longer THE perfect valid signal-
into the rubbish basket with it at your convenience. Like this:

No sir. But the logical fallout from those results is that noise is
'overly-sensitive' to audible difference. And it IS compared to music.


Define "overly". "overly " to you or to me or to Glenn Gould?

But if you repeated this test endlessly comparing the same wire to itself you'd
still get the random distribution of results. And even if you used the same
subjects in a million trials you'd find the distribution of scores but NOT a
pattern based on individual performances.

Another unsupported opinion, another prediction (reminds me of the
stock-market analysts). Let me just observe that your statistical
standards are raised skywards when the dreaded possibility of a
"positive" result looms and drop to ground=zero as long as everything
is lovely and negative and it all sounds the same. You're not the only
one. I'm sorry to say that the same double vision afflicts even the
moderates in your camp such as Norman Strong.

Actually when real differences are present scores quickly become
near-universally positive. To expand, when audibility is truly present there
is still a distribution BUT most subjects score positively on individual scores.

Which are the "real" demonstrated differences between comparable audio
components. References please. So far all you quoted were the
negatives. You had 2 years time. That is how long I've been asking for
positives. And ABX had 30
Question: what is the practical usefulness to an audiophile of a
"test" that has a "distribution with tails"? Not very repeatable, is
it?


Oh yes it IS very repeatable. If there is no audbile difference then you'll
get a random distribution.
If there is a true difference then you get a distribution that is not random.
Both may have tails.


Thereupon you quote your example of real differences(detail snipped).
Surprise, surprise: you allow that level differences are audible.
Congratulations or Duh.. in the contemporary idiom. Is that all you
accept in the world of audio? If you say speakers will sound different
I'll say : prove that it will be the case when a representative
audiophile panel ABXes a representative high-end full range speakers.
My guess (only a guess- but you have nothing better) is that you'll
get another "random distribution with tails" for your pains, because
such is the nature of the ABX beast.

Ludovic wants us to consider any subject who scores better much

than 50% as a
person who "heard" something whether the individual score or overall score
suggests this was the case.

Ludovic does not and never did hold such moronic views. I'm
disappointed that you'd want to attribute them to me.


As much as you claim otherwise what you have specifically asked for is that we
accept non-significant, but seemingly high, results on individual subjects as
real data "hidden" in the averages.
This hasn't ever happened and as far as I can tell has not shown up in any
published experimental results.

As I said befo speak to Greenhill about it. You gentlemen obviously
disagree.

Read above re (Grenhill's own)
"statistical validity criteria". On the contrary, Ludovic has been
trying to explain to a Mr. Marcus for the last two years that adding
up the bad, the average and the good together does not a "positive
result" make. Unsuccessfully it would seem because he came back with
it this very week.


So you would have us only 'count' high scores even if they fall within a
distribution that we'd get when people were only guessing.

No. I'd ask you to run a test with a decent number of panelists, with
your own statistical criteria and demonstrate your truths to your own
satisfaction. Is there anything in audio where some will get a
positive result ABXing that you'll accept? So far no such object or
subject have been found, right?

Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(
www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.

OK? So what? Given a chance result we'de find a distribution and we'd find
a buried Golden Ear according to Ludovic's reasoning. Why are there no
lucky coins in his experiments?

The correct guesses between 70 and 80% of a few of his subjects are
golden
enough, for his test tasks, no? Don't really follow your point.


That's because you don't understand experimental design and analysis. No; 70
to 80% correct will be found in many distributions. So will 20 and 30%
scores.
You seemingly only want to 'count' those scores that will support your
previously held biases.

You not only deny the validity of the results of the "listening tests"
in the Stereo Review etc. but now you're turning against S. Olive,
your own example of a good researcher. Look at his website. He repeats
ad nauseam that he trained and supertrained his subjects to get valid
results and yet according to you all he got was meaningless
"distribution with tails". His few that he accepted as performing
consistenly well are the tail in your statistics.. His documentation
looks transparent and full to me. Take it up with him ,not me.

The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.


Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?


The "test" has the same conditions under which people happily form subjective
difference opinions.


Exactly- no difference.

The "sound" doesn't change only the knowledge over which
component is in the chain or is "X" is withheld.
It is true that it's much harder to identify which of 2 identical sounding
products is driving the loudspeakers when the blindfolds come out. So? None of
that changes the "sound being reproduced.
If the ability to distinguish an amplifier under blindfolded conditions (either
figurately or literally) disappears when bias controls are introduced then it
cannot be said that the device sounds "different."
If the subject then insists that the devices were sonically

different the
conclusion can ONLY be attributed to listener bias.


The "bias controls" are the ABX, right? We're back to which bias is
better and where it lies? For some subjects it is in the ABX. And yes
sighted bias exists as well. The question is what bias does your cure
for bias introduce and for how many?

Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves
individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough
training?


When he can 'hear' inaudible differences? Ludovic why not try an ABX test
yourself? What you'll find is that 1-2-minutes of "training" is entirely
adequate.


This is manifest nonsense and perhaps the very answer to how you
manage to get your "it all sounds the same" results. Tell it to
Krueger, Sean Olive or any psychometrician

Have you actually ever taken an ABX or other controlled listening
test? pcabx for example?
If the answer is "no" I'd say you fall into the same corner that 'audiophiles'
always try to back skeptics into. "Have you heard this component? If not HOW
DARE YOU question my evaluation?"

Not MY question. I would hate to see some people share my likes and
dislikes. To the 2nd question the answer is "yes". After 8 tries I was
sick of the xylophones (or whatever Krueger used) and I was no longer
sure that they were not bells or cymbals. Same as wine tasting. After
the 5th sip I no longer know if it is Chateau Lafitte or Gallo. Pity,
but my sensory receptors in the brain are poor at retaining the past
impressions- however recent.

O.K. You're testing how different amps handle the cello sound. You get
a significant sample (say 10) of experienced chamber music lovers,
selected for their proven ABX training and ability.
And by pot luck: I answered already: this shy, modest listener Mr.
Pinkerton for one. Greenhill's golden ear for two. Keep trying. Since
I believe that ABXing is a skill on its own I can't predict who'll be
good at it. Krueger should have a few such by now.
who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer.


So how does a person who has not demonstrated and ability to 'hear' inaudible
differences qualify under your criteria. All of my ABX subjects have been great
listeners and great ABX performers.
You want "ABX significant scores" on components that sound the same? Those
people don't exist; but are still "great" subjects.

No, I want to read that something DID sound different. Just once.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

Tom said

And
we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of
nominal
competence.



I said


Competence is a matter of opinion in this case.



Tom said


Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals
would
have verified one element of competence.


I said


No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the
beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses
an
equilizer?


Tom said


If the amplifier is not transparent by itself then an equalizer could remedy
that incompetence.


Not an answer to the question. I never placed any such condition you chose to
add to the question.

Tom said


The best use of an equalizer is to enhance competence but like any tool is
could be inappropriately used.


It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.

Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.


If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.

Tom said


And that you noticed differences in the sound of this device compared to
another device with a low output impedance and no deviations measured at the
speaker terminals.



Now; you put a series resistor in the speaker line for the 2nd device and
they
now cannot be distinguished sonically and you, personally preferred the sound
of the devices when response matched.


So who has EQ'd what and what difference does any of that make?


I'd day your
preference is just fine but if you want me to believe that high output
impedance devices that introduce response deviations is somehow improving the
delivered performance I would argue the point.


Argue all you want. It is subjective.

Tom said


It's no different from just cranking up the bass and treble controls on your
preamp because you 'like' the sound that way.


That is subjective as well. that was why I asked the question does an equilizer
make an amp incompetent? Competence has to do with ability to do something. I
am quite confident that the designers and builders of amps you would label as
incompetently designed and built are quite capable of designing and building
amps you would consider competent. It has nothing to do with ability and
everything to do with subjective choices.


Tom said


Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining

evidence?



I said


Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In

your
case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is
the
result and only the result. That is bad science 101.


Tom said


I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of
which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a

full
set of statistical data and results.


I said


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response.


Tom said


You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was
completely reported.


Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were
incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me.

Tom said

Why not obtain some of these.


Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me?

I said


I'm
pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data

you
need beyond a 20 out of 20 score.



Tom said


Well Steve Zipser told me that he regularly scored 19/20 and 20/20 in blind
tests; but when I put him to the test he scored 3/10.


So?

Tom said


Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.


So?

Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the
conditions of his tests pretty well.

Tom said


Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is

what
it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun.


I said


I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it
more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to.



Tom said


Given equal weighting those results are still two dozen to 1 and haven't been
replicated.


24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you
still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer
review. If this is convincing to you fine. Any claims of scientific fact are
farfetched at best.


Tom said

If
you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other
evidence, please tell us.




I said


Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal
evidence.


Tom said


It's interesting that you seem to completely lack an interest in the
available
evidence on the subject and a complete reluctance to acquire any evidence on
your own.


Once again you have successfully mischaracterized my thoughts.


Tom said


Anecdotes?


I said


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal
and
the scientific community has theirs.


Tom said


And YOU speak for the scientific community?


Do you think what I said is incorrect? Do you think the scientific community
would embrase these tests you use as scientifically valid or as anecdotal?


Tom said

I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur
experiment published in 1980 have you?


I said


I have not so far.


Tom said


Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."?


I said


Scientifically speaking, yep.



Tom said


And you are qualified to comment on them 'scientifically?'


Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced by
scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal?


I said


I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than

the
ones you like.



Tom said


But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone
duplicated that?


I said


Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you
should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions.


Tom said


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


Oh, where did you get the Apogees?

I said

No matter how you
dress
it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you
choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a
flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept

other than
the
results.


Tom said


Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description of
the data.


That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.

Tom said


Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's
viewed favorably by YOU?


Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different
result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that
should be a surprise.

Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?


I said


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?



Tom said


No. That seems to be your problem.


In a way yes, since I don't toss out data just because it conflicts with other
data. you don't have a problem with conflicting data as long as you toss out
all the data you don't like.

Tom said

I'm saying that this single report has never
been duplicated by anyone else among the couple dozen published experiments.
Why not?


Given the many variables, many of which wer foolishly allowed in some of these
tests IMO, it is not the least bit surprising to me that the various tests have
yielded different results.

Tom said


And in the last analysis if I said to you that a certain medicine had a great
effect in one experiment but not in two dozen others how are you going to
'weight' the results?


If you are comparing these anecdotal tests to legitimate medical studies you
are on shaky ground to say the least.

Tom said


I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion
experiment


I said


IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the
fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific.


Tom said


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results you
wanted?


Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.



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

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

...large snips, avoiding the endless misrepresentation of previously published
data ....



No. I'd ask you to run a test with a decent number of panelists, with
your own statistical criteria and demonstrate your truths to your own
satisfaction. Is there anything in audio where some will get a
positive result ABXing that you'll accept? So far no such object or
subject have been found, right?


Not for nominally competent ampliifers and wires. Other stuff ..... lots; it's
just that nothing supporting your folklore mythology about sound quality has
shown that the Urban Legends have substance.


Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf
(
www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his
supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or
thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or
more.


This data dredging means nothing without context. You have a penchant for
grabbing sub-textual detail and bending it to suit an argument that is fatally
flawd to begin with. This is a fairly common disengenous technique and amounts
to wanting to select only that data that seems to support a parently untenable
hypothesis that has not been verified.


You not only deny the validity of the results of the "listening tests"
in the Stereo Review etc. but now you're turning against S. Olive,
your own example of a good researcher. Look at his website. He repeats
ad nauseam that he trained and supertrained his subjects to get valid
results and yet according to you all he got was meaningless
"distribution with tails". His few that he accepted as performing
consistenly well are the tail in your statistics.. His documentation
looks transparent and full to me. Take it up with him ,not me.


I know Sean quite well and if you were being brutally honest you'd recognize
that his training is used for improving reliability of numerically scoring
acoustic differences that have already been sjown to be audible (loudspeakers.)


He will agree with me that NO amount of training will improve relability of
subejcts when exposed to inaudible 'difference.'

When there are truly audible differences his training is designed to help
subjects give the same score every time they are exposed a given sound.

You are trying to squash an idiological idea (amp/sound) into a loudspeaker
evaluation technique. Nothing basically wrong with using proven techniques in
new ways but comparing statistical data from an area where differences are
known to one where the basis of audibility has never even been shown to exist
is just plain disengenous.


The subject is
reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact
saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to
saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL
reproduction differences between components.


Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate
test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of
most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the
nature of your test?


The "test" has the same conditions under which people happily form

subjective
difference opinions.


Exactly- no difference.


No sir. In amplifier tests I've conducted subjects swore the devices sounded
different yet weren't able to tell them apart with sometimes nothing more than
a black cloth was placed over the input/output terminals.

The "opinion" was clearly "different." The Truth was "difference not verified."



The "sound" doesn't change only the knowledge over which
component is in the chain or is "X" is withheld.
It is true that it's much harder to identify which of 2 identical sounding
products is driving the loudspeakers when the blindfolds come out. So? None

of
that changes the "sound being reproduced.
If the ability to distinguish an amplifier under blindfolded conditions

(either
figurately or literally) disappears when bias controls are introduced then

it
cannot be said that the device sounds "different."
If the subject then insists that the devices were sonically

different the
conclusion can ONLY be attributed to listener bias.


The "bias controls" are the ABX, right? We're back to which bias is
better and where it lies? For some subjects it is in the ABX. And yes
sighted bias exists as well. The question is what bias does your cure
for bias introduce and for how many?


It eliminates listener bias restricting decisions to acoustical sound only.
Nothing wrong with that.

You've shown no evidence that any other kind of bias has been introduced.
You've only told us you don't like any data that doesn't support your folklore.

I'd recommend that you find to way to document amp sound without listener bias
and then put that evidence on the table so that I can replicate same. Just
because no 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist' has failed to document same over the
past 30 years isn't a reasonable excuse for the lack of factual evidence
supporting amp/wire sound.



So how does a person who has not demonstrated and ability to 'hear'

inaudible
differences qualify under your criteria. All of my ABX subjects have been

great
listeners and great ABX performers.
You want "ABX significant scores" on components that sound the same? Those
people don't exist; but are still "great" subjects.

No, I want to read that something DID sound different. Just once.
Ludovic Mirabel


I refer you toToole/Olive whose work has already been referenced by you.
  #292   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

(S888Wheel) wrote:

..large snips ....


It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a
sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.


If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input
terminals to its output terminals without doing anything excpet amplifying it
that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer.

If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without
alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it
doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'ampliifer.'

OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more flexibility.


Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes

when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.


If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.


You're right; it's a case of a weak design tool set or craziness.


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response.


Tom said


You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was
completely reported.


Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were
incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me.


Frequency response at the loudspeaker termianls was confirmed in all
the full experiments I sent you. I was referring to those listed in "The Great
Debate....?" none of which you've seemingly acquired since then.

Why not obtain some of these.


Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me?


Please. Expand your horizons and gather some information on your own.

Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.


So?

Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what
is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the
conditions of his tests pretty well.


Frequency response differences were not verified.

24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you
still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer
review.


Stewart's is the 1. And since his hasn't been either published or subject to
peer review doesn't it fail you "scientific" criteria?


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal
and
the scientific community has theirs.


So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified
to pass judgement how can you say one way or another?

But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as
having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound.

I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z, Vanderkooy,
Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau....

I'm accepting their opinion over yours.

Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced
by
scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal?


Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment?

I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


Oh, where did you get the Apogees?


I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with
differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices.


Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description

of
the data.


That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.


Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there?


Tom said


Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's
viewed favorably by YOU?


Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different
result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that
should be a surprise.

Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?


I said


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?


I know exactly what to do with all data. You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.

Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results

you
wanted?


Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.


OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to
Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and Wire
is Wire !!!
  #293   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

I said



It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a
sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.


Tom said


If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input
terminals to its output terminals without doing anything excpet amplifying it
that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer.


Jusr another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the world.
All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency
response. They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and
change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better.

Tom said


If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without
alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it
doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'ampliifer.'


OSAF see above for the same exact comment.

Tom said


OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more flexibility.


Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only that.



Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes

when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.


I said


If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.


Tom said


You're right; it's a case of a weak design tool set or craziness.


You got it part right.

I said


The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response.



Tom said


You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was
completely reported.


I said


Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were
incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me.


Tom said


Frequency response at the loudspeaker termianls was confirmed in all
the full experiments I sent you. I was referring to those listed in "The Great
Debate....?" none of which you've seemingly acquired since then.

No I haven't been an any easter egg hunts lately. Again, I saw no measurements
of frequency response in the ones you sent me but I'll dig them out and look
again.

Tom said


Why not obtain some of these.


I said


Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me?


Tom said


Please. Expand your horizons and gather some information on your own.

I wonder if this is an adequate response to a peer review group asking for
proof of a definitive claim of fact that is allegedly scientifically valid. "I
say it's so now you go out and prove it." That isn't going to change many
minds.

Tom said



Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.


I said


So?



Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


I said


The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what
is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the
conditions of his tests pretty well.


Tom said


Frequency response differences were not verified.


Well, I guess one has to ask at this point, were the amps that Stewert said
were "*******" not amps but "equilizers" and how would one know one way or
another when one is a mere consumer? People running around believing all amps
sound the same except SETs and some OTLs may not be as well informed as
objectivists would assume. If those amps sounded different they sounded
different. at least to Stewert on his system.

I said


24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you
still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer
review.


Tom said



Stewart's is the 1. And since his hasn't been either published or subject to
peer review doesn't it fail you "scientific" criteria?



Obviously. don't you remeber i said it was anecdotal scientifically speaking as
well as the tests you have cited?

I said


Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests
were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal
and
the scientific community has theirs.



Stewert said


So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified
to pass judgement how can you say one way or another?


Gosh, i found it in numerous text books in my science classes in high school
and at my university. I also like to ask my friends who also happen to be
working research scientists. I am much kinder towards your favorite tests on
amplifier sound then they are. I showed them the reports you sent me and they
said they were absolute garbage.

Tom said


But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as
having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound.


We are obviously talking to different scientists.

Tom said


I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z, Vanderkooy,
Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau....

Julian Hirsch was a scientist? Mr. Clark's report was scoffed at by my
scientist freinds. Is he considered a research scientist?

Tom said


I'm accepting their opinion over yours.


That's fine. I never set myself up as an authroity. You respect the opinions of
some in audio and I respect the opinion of some others. But didn't Julian
Hirsch come out and say the old 14 bit CD players playing the old undithered
CDs were sonically superior and audibally free of distortion? You are free to
take his word on things if you wish.

I said


Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced
by
scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal?



Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment?


Because it is irrelevant. Why not answer the question I asked you? It is
relevant. I think what i do know about the scientific method qualifies me. I am
quite confident that my friends who happen to be actual research scientists are
quite qualified to comment. They called them anecdotal. The word garbage was
also thrown around. The problem is my "qualifications" are not at issue. My
comment that they are anecodtal tests scientifically speaking is not right or
wrong because of my qualifications or lack there of. So can you answer the
relevant question i asked you? I'm betting you don't answer the question and
instead focus on me and my qualifications. we'll see.

Tom said


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


I said



Oh, where did you get the Apogees?


Tom said

I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with
differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices.

Then you didn't replicate Stewert's tests.

Tom said



Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description

of
the data.


I said


That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.


Tom said


Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there?


I guess you missed the part about tests being anecdotal scientifically
speaking.



Tom said


Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's
viewed favorably by YOU?



I said


Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different
result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that
should be a surprise.


Tom said


Tom said


I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only
that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not?


I said


I said


What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data?



Tom said


I know exactly what to do with all data.

Here's a hint. Tossing data you don't like isn't it.

Tom said

You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.


Why? Because I am not picking and choosing data? OK........

Tom said


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results

you
wanted?


I said



Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.


Tom said



OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to
Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and Wire
is Wire !!!

I accept those tests for what they are. i don't suspect fraud. i just don't
share your interpretation of the results of those tests. I don't draw global
conclusions and claim they are definitive and scientifically valid from a few
anecdotal tests. We part ways there in a big way.

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

ludovic mirabel wrote:

Quote one single sentence of mine "spouting that the researchers are wrong".


The labeling of masking (a long understood property) as a 'meaningless
buzzword'.

  #295   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
newsBd2b.188345$Oz4.51245@rwcrnsc54...
I said




It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a

sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer

sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and

succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.


Tom said



If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input
terminals to its output terminals without doing anything except amplifying

it
that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer.


Well, both. In this day and age electronics packages that include both
amplification and equalization are fairly common. They are commonly used in
mobile audio, and for building speakers used by audio professionals,
particularly production monitors. There are also a few consumer speakers
that include equalizers and amplifiers as part of the product package.

For a long time we've had amplifiers that included user-operated equalizers.
We called the user operated equalizers tone controls and the products were
called integrated amplifiers.

There is no confusion in the mainstream audio world over the fact that these
pieces of equipment are composites, and are designed for specific
applications.

If a product is sold as a basic power amplifier, and has no visible controls
for frequency response shaping, then it is presumed that it was designed to
have the widest, flattest response possible.

Just another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the

world.

No, just reflecting accepted practice.

All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency
response.


All amplifiers have non-flat frequency response. All amplifiers distort the
signals. However it is generally accepted that basic power amplifier will
have the broadest, flattest response over the audible range that is
reasonably possible and that it will have inaudible nonlinear distortion.

They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and
change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better.


I see no games being played with what Tom said. Tom is very conversant with
the modern audio arts.

Tom said


If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without
alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it
doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'amplifier.'


Agreed.

OSAF see above for the same exact comment.


But as I just showed, the comment is wrong and does not reflect current
accepted practice in mainstream audio.

Tom said


OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more

flexibility.


Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only

that.

No, what Tom is saying reflects current mainstream thinking.


Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier

with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes

when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.


I said



If the end result is preferred sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence.


The problem here is that an amplifier that imposes random audible changes in
its frequency response, changes that vary depending on the impedance curve
of speakers, which vary more-or-less randomly among various makes and
models, is generally considered to be technically incompetent.

Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.


An amplifier that audibly changes its response with various speakers is like
a car that can't go minimum legal speeds when its air conditioner is
cycling.



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

[Moderator's note: This subthread has become very repetitive and
almost completely between only 2 people, so it and the other
subthreads with this subject are ended. -- deb ]

(S888Wheel) wrote:


No I haven't been an any easter egg hunts lately. Again, I saw no
measurements
of frequency response in the ones you sent me but I'll dig them out and look
again.


Measurements weren't printed but were taken.


I wonder if this is an adequate response to a peer review group asking for
proof of a definitive claim of fact that is allegedly scientifically valid.
"I
say it's so now you go out and prove it." That isn't going to change many
minds.


Nothing is going to change your mind; no matter how overwhelming.

Tom said
Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm

just
saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this
type of device.


I said


So?
Tom said


And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual
conditions that produce similar results.


I said


The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what
is
normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was
unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out

the
conditions of his tests pretty well.


Tom said


Frequency response differences were not verified.


Well, I guess one has to ask at this point, were the amps that Stewert said
were "*******" not amps but "equilizers" and how would one know one way or
another when one is a mere consumer? People running around believing all amps
sound the same except SETs and some OTLs may not be as well informed as
objectivists would assume. If those amps sounded different they sounded
different. at least to Stewert on his system.


OK but as you would say ... so what? Every amplifier sounds different on your
street, even those that don't.

Have YOU ever found one that sounded like another?

Stewert said


Hey; this is Tom




So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified
to pass judgement how can you say one way or another?


Gosh, i found it in numerous text books in my science classes in high school
and at my university. I also like to ask my friends who also happen to be
working research scientists. I am much kinder towards your favorite tests on
amplifier sound then they are. I showed them the reports you sent me and they
said they were absolute garbage.


Really; then why don't you tell me more?

Did you explain that no one from the "proponent" camp has ever provided an
experiment to meet your criteria that shows that amp sound is true.

Just to be "subjectivist" about this; what were the research credentials of
those folks? Just because you provide this anecdote doesn't mean that we have
to take your word for it.



Tom said


But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as
having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound.


We are obviously talking to different scientists.


Yes and I've supplied my list of experts. May I have yours?


Tom said


I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z,
Vanderkooy,
Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau....

Julian Hirsch was a scientist? Mr. Clark's report was scoffed at by my
scientist freinds. Is he considered a research scientist?


So what research scientists do you reference. Who scoffed at Clark? Hirsch was
indeed a research scientist; he started the whole 3rd party audio evaluation
paradigm and he followed it through with bias controlled listening tests.



Tom said


I'm accepting their opinion over yours.


That's fine. I never set myself up as an authroity. You respect the opinions
of
some in audio and I respect the opinion of some others. But didn't Julian
Hirsch come out and say the old 14 bit CD players playing the old undithered
CDs were sonically superior and audibally free of distortion? You are free to
take his word on things if you wish.


And that was shown to be true. Not that they were superior but that they didn't
suffer from the sonic problems ascribed to them. And Julian wasn't the only
person who attested to this.



Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment?


Because it is irrelevant. Why not answer the question I asked you? It is
relevant. I think what i do know about the scientific method qualifies me.


Really? The what about "Do Amplifiers...?" disqualifies it? What about "To
Tweak...?" disqualifies it?

I
am
quite confident that my friends who happen to be actual research scientists
are
quite qualified to comment.


So who are these people? How do they qualify as scientists?

They called them anecdotal. The word garbage was
also thrown around. The problem is my "qualifications" are not at issue.


Sure they are. You've made the challenge and used anonymous references that
can't be verified. So we have to rely on your appeal to authority but you have
no authority referent.

My
comment that they are anecodtal tests scientifically speaking is not right or
wrong because of my qualifications or lack there of. So can you answer the
relevant question i asked you? I'm betting you don't answer the question and
instead focus on me and my qualifications. we'll see.


The relevant question? Yes they meet the basic requirements for scientific
inquiry.


Tom said


I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results.


I said



Oh, where did you get the Apogees?


Tom said

I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with
differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices.

Then you didn't replicate Stewert's tests.


Replication doesn't need excatly the same equipment. Yes, I've replicated the
experiment with other hard loads. And, yes, Stewart's speakers are no longer
commerically available and were only distributed on a limited basis.

So to borrow a oft-employed high-end barter; even if you accept Stewart's
results for that particular set of no-longer available speakers you still can't
extrapolate that experience to any other listener or other loudspeaker.

So where is you evidence of any other speaker and any other amplifiers?



Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson,
Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different
conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description

of
the data.


I said


That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific
facts though.


Tom said


Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there?


I guess you missed the part about tests being anecdotal scientifically
speaking.


So you would consider Toole's work as anecdotal? He'll be happy to hear that.
By the way Shanefield was a research scientist at Bell Labs when he conducted
his work. Recently he retired from Rutgers from a "Distinguished Professor"
post.


Tom said


I know exactly what to do with all data.

Here's a hint. Tossing data you don't like isn't it.


I'd say same to you. That's what you do by failing to consider all the
evidence. I include it all.


Tom said

You are the person that seems to have
that difficulty.


Why? Because I am not picking and choosing data? OK........


Yes you are. I sent you at least one complete experiment with full data that
contradicts the Pinkerton anecdote but you consign it to the 'not worth
considering' bin.

That report is "garbage" but Pinkerton is seemingly not by your definition. And
then you'll cop-out to the "I've not seen any conclusive evidence" argument
again.

We all know where you're going. There will never be sufficient evidence to
overcome your internal bias.

That's fine with me but why continue wasting all our time with these 'debates?'
Don't answer; I know the reason ..... no amount of research can prove the
existence of inaudible differences so you are reduced to debate.


Tom said


Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results

you
wanted?


I said



Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to
say no. You are alone on this one.


Tom said



OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to
Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and
Wire
is Wire !!!

I accept those tests for what they are. i don't suspect fraud. i just don't
share your interpretation of the results of those tests. I don't draw global
conclusions and claim they are definitive and scientifically valid from a few
anecdotal tests. We part ways there in a big way.


So then let's tally. There have been a couple dozen "anecdotal" experiments
with listener bias controls implemented that have failed to confirm "amp" sound
that had no documented frequency response anomalies or operational flaws. There
has been one that claimed otherwise but was not fully documented.

There has not been a single experiment of any kind, let alone peer-reviewed,
that has shown that nominally competent amplification devices have any 'sound'
of their own.

If amp sound was extant it would have been seemingly easy for proponents to
show same with a modicum of listener bias. Yet, none have done so.

And Wheel wants us to ignore all available information and just 'assume' amp
sound is a real phenomonon because he says so. How scientific is that?



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

I said



It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a

sign
of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer

sets
out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and

succeeds
then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective.




Tom said



If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input
terminals to its output terminals without doing anything except amplifying

it
that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer.


Arny said



Well, both. In this day and age electronics packages that include both
amplification and equalization are fairly common. They are commonly used in
mobile audio, and for building speakers used by audio professionals,
particularly production monitors. There are also a few consumer speakers
that include equalizers and amplifiers as part of the product package.

For a long time we've had amplifiers that included user-operated equalizers.
We called the user operated equalizers tone controls and the products were
called integrated amplifiers.

There is no confusion in the mainstream audio world over the fact that these
pieces of equipment are composites, and are designed for specific
applications.


All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. we
are talking about power amplifiers only. Not amplifiers that include
equilizers, preamplifiers, tuners or anything else.

Arny said


If a product is sold as a basic power amplifier, and has no visible controls
for frequency response shaping, then it is presumed that it was designed to
have the widest, flattest response possible.


You and Tom are free to make all the presumptions you like. Neither of you
write the rules of high end amplifier design and manufacturing. Not everyone
shares your beliefs or sensibilities. It seems that you are both part of a
small group of audiophiles with a particular belief system. Nothing wrong with
being part of a small group but pretending to speak for everyone is a mistake.

I said


Just another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the

world.


Arny said


No, just reflecting accepted practice.


No. There is no accepted practice I know of in consumer audio where
manufacturers call their power amps equilizers just because objectivists are
disatisfied with the frequency response of their amps. If you can find one
example of a manufacturer calling their dedicated power amps an equilizer
please cite it. It is clearly a case of Tom writing his own meanings of
commonly used words in audio and you buying it. walk into any high end shop
that sells amps that you or Tom call equilizers and ask to see equilizers. I
bet they don't show you any of the amps in question. You guys want to make up
your own audio language fine. Enjoy each other's company.

I said


All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency
response.


Arny said


All amplifiers have non-flat frequency response. All amplifiers distort the
signals. However it is generally accepted that basic power amplifier will
have the broadest, flattest response over the audible range that is
reasonably possible and that it will have inaudible nonlinear distortion.

Again another global claim of what is accepted. You will do better just
speaking for those with whom you agree on this subject.

I said



They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and
change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better.


Arny said



I see no games being played with what Tom said. Tom is very conversant with
the modern audio arts.


You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. I see word
games. I am sure many others would as well if they were to read tom's post. You
seem to be confusing your beliefs with universal beliefs.


Tom said


If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without
alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it
doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'amplifier.'



Arny said

Agreed

I said


OSAF see above for the same exact comment.


Arny said



But as I just showed, the comment is wrong and does not reflect current
accepted practice in mainstream audio.


You didn't show anything. You simply agreed with Tom. More OSAF.

I said



Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only

that.

Arny said



No, what Tom is saying reflects current mainstream thinking.



No Arny, it relfects the thinking of a small subset of audiophiles. I'm not
saying there is anything wrong with being in a small club but your small club
does not represent anything more than the small club.



Tom said


Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier

with a
3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes

when
this device is used to drive a given speaker.




I said



If the end result is preferred sound then one has a hard time claiming
incompetence.


Arny said



The problem here is that an amplifier that imposes random audible changes in
its frequency response, changes that vary depending on the impedance curve
of speakers, which vary more-or-less randomly among various makes and
models, is generally considered to be technically incompetent.


By a some yes. Again these global claims are nonsense. I have already explained
to Tom the difference between competence and design choice. Please feel free to
review those comments on this thread so i don't have to be redundant in these
responses.

I said


Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to
do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence.


Arny said


An amplifier that audibly changes its response with various speakers is like
a car that can't go minimum legal speeds when its air conditioner is
cycling.


Amplifiers are equilizers to Tom and cars to you. Amplifiers are amplifiers to
me regardless of their sonic signatures.

  #298   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03

Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a
signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX
method you get false negative results.


Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly.


At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first paragraph
is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen. This is
because masking is a function of the human ear and all listening tests
involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of tests that are most
profounding affected by masking are also those that are most highly
dependent on just hearing.

Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I
observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix.


As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is gratuitous
and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the evaluation is done by
just listening.

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

ludovic mirabel wrote:

Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a
signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX
method you
get false negative results.
Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly.
Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I
observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix. And since it is the
musical properties of audio components that I want to compare I shall
avoid ABX?


So masking goes away, like magic, during sighted tests? I guess those
reserachers are wrong after all, no? Too bad.

Perhaps you might find better answers to your questions over in
alt.solipsism or the like.

  #300   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:NP33b.276712$uu5.62322@sccrnsc04...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03

Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a
signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX
method you get false negative results.


Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly.


At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first

paragraph
is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen. This is
because masking is a function of the human ear and all listening tests
involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of tests that are most
profounding affected by masking are also those that are most highly
dependent on just hearing.

Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I
observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix.


As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is

gratuitous
and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the evaluation is done

by
just listening.


I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or
denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and that it
sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with longer term
exposure.



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

Harry Lavo wrote:

I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or
denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and that it
sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with longer term
exposure.


Perhaps you're talking about training. Music students who are learning how
to identify chords, their inversions and harmonic progressions by ear have to
learn to work with the ears masking a great deal.
  #302   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:rpd3b.279608$uu5.62798@sccrnsc04

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:NP33b.276712$uu5.62322@sccrnsc04...


"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03


Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a
signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX
method you get false negative results.


Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences,
silly.


At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first

paragraph
is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen.


There are many means by which music masks differences. There are two general
kinds of masking, temporal masking and spectral masking. Music tends to
create situations where either or both kinds of masking take place.

This is because masking is a function of the human ear and all
listening tests involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of
tests that are most profoundly affected by masking are also those
that are most highly dependent on just hearing.


Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I
observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix.


As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is
gratuitous and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the
evaluation is done by just listening.


I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or
denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and
that it sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with
longer term exposure.


You might be speaking of temporal masking, which relates to the fact that
loud noises mask softer noises for dozens of milliseconds before and after
the loud noise. Since even the shortest proximate switching involves longer
periods of time than that, it is not an issue in properly-run tests.

Besides, it is well known that there is nothing about proximate-switching
tests that inhibits or prohibits long term listening. Therefore, exposure
duration is not a problem for them.

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

ludovic mirabel wrote:

The original argument though was about what kind of noise
should one use when listening for differences between components. It
appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when
music is used as a signal.


Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if
people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence,
the Dark Ages would never have ended.

What you are doing is like endlessly pondering the question that if one
puts their hand near a fire and it causes pain, is it the fire or your
hand that produces the pain? You simply refuse to consider evidence that
contradicts your immediate personal impressions on this issue and to hell
with understanding what is really going on.

Carry on if that makes you happy. I've got other things I'd rather do.
  #305   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

ludovic mirabel wrote:

Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink
noise? After all the local authorities eg. Nousaine and Krueger
explained to me that was the reason why Greenhill's cable test
subjects who did brilliantly with pink noise failed with music. I'm
getting dizzy. Its awful to be a survivor of U.K. Med. Research Ccil
Dark Ages of DBT research only to have to face the RAHE real science.


All I can say is that you obviously did something very different there
than what you do here.



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

In article myM3b.297598$Ho3.42122@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
wrote in message
...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

The original argument though was about what kind of noise
should one use when listening for differences between components. It
appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably
when
music is used as a signal.


Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And
if
people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other
evidence,
the Dark Ages would never have ended.

Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink
noise? After all the local authorities eg. Nousaine and Krueger
explained to me that was the reason why Greenhill's cable test
subjects who did brilliantly with pink noise failed with music. I'm
getting dizzy. Its awful to be a survivor of U.K. Med. Research Ccil
Dark Ages of DBT research only to have to face the RAHE real science.


Yes you are confused. Pink noise works better for any comparison of
audio equipment due to masking as has been explained over and over to
you. As to your expertise in science matters, did you play hooky the
day that they taught that one needs to be trained in a specific
discipline in order to be able to make any useful judgments on the
validity of procedures in that discipline? It seems so. And you keep
insisting that only DBTs in medical research are the only valid uses.
What about psychology, another science without objective measures of
correctness? Are those scientists no practicing "real science"
either?

What you are doing is like endlessly pondering the question that if
one
puts their hand near a fire and it causes pain, is it the fire or your
hand that produces the pain? You simply refuse to consider evidence
that
contradicts your immediate personal impressions on this issue and to
hell
with understanding what is really going on.

A beatiful and a very apt analogy.


Glad you think so, it really describes your approach to this
discussion very well.

Carry on if that makes you happy. I've got other things I'd rather
do.


You mean no one left to ease my passage from the Dark Ages to
modernity?


No, it seems you have no desire to move on.


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

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:myM3b.297598$Ho3.42122@sccrnsc03...
wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

The original argument though was about what kind of noise
should one use when listening for differences between components. It
appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when
music is used as a signal.

Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if
people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence,
the Dark Ages would never have ended.

Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink
noise?


Try this: ABX "appears" to have this flaw because you are only looking
at the results of ABX tests. (This is an example of selection bias.
You remember selection bias.)

If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the
ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd
realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to
hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and
level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in
sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It
would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at
all.

bob


Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of
audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid
commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities.
In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden
myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component
renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out
if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh
violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track
and relax.
As regards your tacked on reference to right-left- I wish
you wouldn't. You may be making my day but people will be guessing
that you're my public relations man, read my today's reply to you in
the "What is so high..." thread and suspect collusion.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03...

If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the
ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd
realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to
hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and
level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in
sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It
would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at
all.

bob


Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of
audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid
commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities.
In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden
myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component
renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out
if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh
violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track
and relax.


I guess you missed the part where I said, "certain kinds of differences."

bob


Sorry: requote:
it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.


That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.
A perfect test for a "they all sound the same as the Citizen
integrated"
result. Or will you now move 180 degrees and ask for music?
Ludovic Mirabel

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

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03...

If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the
ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd
realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to
hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and
level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in
sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It
would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at
all.

bob

Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of
audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid
commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities.
In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden
myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component
renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out
if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh
violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track
and relax.


I guess you missed the part where I said, "certain kinds of differences."

bob


Sorry: requote:
it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.


That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.


Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know
whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise
is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice
for that purpose.

bob



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

(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:tv36b.269205$cF.84970@rwcrnsc53...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03...

Thus he spoke:
If you looked more broadly, ... See below for the quote in full


I answered:
In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden
myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component
renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out
if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh
violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track
and relax.

Marcus answered:

Sorry: requote:
it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.


I asked:
That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.


Marcus the next day:
Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know
whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise
is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice
for that purpose.

bob


Fancy that! I must remember it. Solo (must it be solo?) piano for
transients is it? I always wanted to know but didn't dare to ask.
Especially as the subject here was not what kind of INSTRUMENT to use
for ABXing components but what kind of SIGNAL.
Like that. I had said 4 days ago:
The original argument though was about what kind of noise
should one use when listening for differences between components. It
appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when
music is used as a signal.

Thereupon he lectured me sternly:
If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the
ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd
realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to
hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and
level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in
sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It
would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at
all.

Note: "OF COURSE, MUSICAL sounds". Note "INCLUDING particularly".
(what does it include not particularly?), Note the hymn to pink noise:
"works BETTER in sighted etc..."
Note: This is the ONLY test Marcus proposes for comparing MUSICAL
differences between components.
Till to day anyway.
And now note that yesterday I pointed out that it is useless for what
makes music music and not a collection of "sounds".- composer's and
performer's art in putting transients, harmonics, timbre, pedal note
in the right places.
Never at a loss Mr. Marcus now narrows down pink noise usefulness to
showing up JUST level differences and deviations from FR. (I don't
know how he knows this last- I'd put my hat on music for that- but let
it pass)
So for everything that makes music music A MUSICAL signal is best
after all? Or what is the latest?
Because using my prophetic gifts I forecast yesterday: " Or will you
now move 180 degrees and ask for music?"
Waiting for the next turnaround.
Ludovic Mirabel

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

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT,
(Bob Marcus)
wrote:

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message

tt.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message
...

it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.

That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.


Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know
whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise
is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice
for that purpose.


Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and
castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would
not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing
with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for
pretty tedious listening! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics; those
programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener forcing
them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully.

That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program segments
and fast switching.

  #313   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:SyS6b.285105$cF.88295@rwcrnsc53...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT,
(Bob Marcus)
wrote:

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message

tt.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message
...

it will be easier to hear certain kinds of

differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.

That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.

Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know
whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise
is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice
for that purpose.


Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and
castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would
not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing
with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for
pretty tedious listening! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics;

those
programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener

forcing
them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully.

That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program

segments
and fast switching.


And as the Ooshami et al testing suggests, perhaps along with it *decreases*
the ability of people to respond to and evaluate the ability of the
components to provide musical enjoyment (including emotional impact). As
opposed to extended listening in a proto-mondaic yet blind fashion, lest you
have forgotten what I reference here.

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

"Harry Lavo" wrote:


"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:SyS6b.285105$cF.88295@rwcrnsc53...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT,
(Bob Marcus)
wrote:

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
tt.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message
...

it will be easier to hear certain kinds of

differences--including
particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music.

That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring
out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink
noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone
induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech,
Perahia boom etc.etc.

Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know
whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise
is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice
for that purpose.

Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and
castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would
not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing
with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for
pretty tedious listening! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics;

those
programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener

forcing
them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully.

That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program

segments
and fast switching.


And as the Ooshami et al testing suggests, perhaps along with it *decreases*
the ability of people to respond to and evaluate the ability of the
components to provide musical enjoyment (including emotional impact). As
opposed to extended listening in a proto-mondaic yet blind fashion, lest you
have forgotten what I reference here.


Ah; but it only vaguely "suggests" and has yet to be verified while all the
extant research not only 'suggests' but actually shows otherwise.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.

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"