[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
bias.


Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution
to the well-known problem of postitive listener
differentiation bias, when using test signals and
artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and
proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what
ABX is.

Could you write in a more pompous and rediculous fashion, Harry?

It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests - ABX is well-known
to be bullet-proof solution to the well-known problem of false positive
results.

Here is what it is not.

IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener
differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might
have such biases)

Again Harry, you've managed to make something simple seem complex. ABX
addresses a problem with false negative results some people hypothesize
exists.

IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener
training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of
open-ended evaluation)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only
roughly half qualify at H-K)

How does that make ABX any different from most other ways of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference
*doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed
to)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when
used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of
audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening
cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?


Furthermore,:

ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct
evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX
box that is no longer available, and whose contacts
may/may not audibly influence the sound

In fact an ABX box is not required to do ABX tests - the ABX box just makes
it more convenient. The purpose of the ABX Comparator is to make it easy to
do valid DBTs all by yourself. If you have an assistant, then you don't need
an ABX box.

Given that thousands of people have done PCABX tests which are basically ABX
tests, Harry is not telling the whole truth here. There is an inexhaustable
supply of PVABX comparators.


AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer
to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use.

"Open--ended" is a Lavo-ism. It's a phrase with no standard aggreed-upon
meaning. It means whatever Harry wants to construe it to mean.

Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard
about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in
product development (which I have a background in,
although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what
I have concluded:

Scientific research:

ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where
it was first used in audio, in order to determine human
threasholds for various forms of distortion, including
compression artifacts. It is best used and most
sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be
trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is
required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful
research tool...for scientiific inquiry.

ABX has very little value in the actual development of
audio gear.

Hmm, maybe Harry is actually going to some much-needed homework ehre.

I've examined the process from several
different angels and have concluded it would be useful
only in a few cases. Consider these common development
scenarios:

Practical Development Efforts:

* The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting
cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know
if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for
"no difference".

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

How do you screen out poor performers.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Bottom line, Harry is just blowing hot wind out of the back of his neck.
Like Mirabel, Harry's vendetta against ABX is well-known and has been
illustrated with many examples.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
question: "When participating in an ABX test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

/

It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests

but not as smelly as your prosaic turds.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
question: "When participating in an ABX test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

because she souldn't care less about 2 second snippets of
elecronicaqlly
generqated castenets played through a pc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

So tell me, Arns: how many amps, preamps, CD players, DVD players, etc.
do you bring home to ABX prior to making a selection? Obviously at
least two of each, but how many more?

How does your retailer feel about all the open-box merchandise that you
return?

And how many restock charges do you accrue in your quest for sameness?

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
even HEARD of ABX?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

Point?


2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
question: "When participating in an ABX test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables
(or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known
to me.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

Arny Krueger a scris:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

om

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
question: "When participating in an ABX test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

because she souldn't care less about 2 second snippets of
elecronicaqlly
generqated castenets played through a pc.

That too.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
me to summarize for you:

Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.

Well, let's see about that, shall we?


1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

Obviously no bias.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
in an ABX test....")

Obviously no bias.

3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
the subject. Not."

No bias.

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot. How's that?

based on the
fact that I never claimed to be "up on the subject." That's why I asked
the question.

You're question was stupid. Deal with it.

I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as
much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off.

When have I "spouted off" about ABX?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Jenn? You spout-off
about audio issues.

I guess that in your world, one is
not allowed to ask questions and try to learn.

Wrong again, Jenn. (Hey, that rhymes!)

Too bad.

Too bad you're so hyper-sensitive, Jenn.

4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
say, Dizzy...."

Again, no bias.

Again, bias.

5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
simply asking a question about ABX,

Wrong.

How does your statement relate to the fact that I was simply asking a
question?

How does your question relate to the fact that I was simply making a
statement?

am trying to learn, and wondering
why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
allowed...."
6. I tell you, accurately,

Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn.

Note: no reponse.

that you're not making sense.

Think harder.

Note: no response.

You then throw more snot.

How ironic.

Note: no response.

PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.

My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.

LOL. Come back when you have something substantial.

How ironic.

Again, I was
SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.

Again, I was SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT.

If you can't deal with it and simply want to
hurl "insults"

If you can't deal with it and simply want to hurl "snot"

you're no long worth a response.

But Arny is, apparently.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
even HEARD of ABX?

Irrelevant. Did you hear of chlorofluorocarbons before they were banned?
Thank's Jnen for, admitting Jeen that you're are as clueless-about
envorinemtal poison's Jennn like Audio-engineering Jenne.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.
Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables
(or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known
to me.

You're putting the cart after the horse as usual, here Jenn. The entire
whole complete point of doing the castanet drill on Krooger's site is to
learn that EVERYTHING SOUNDS THE SAME. Once you're over that hump, you
won't worry about trying to distinguish actual components from others.

Try to keep up Jennn. Its like the space-program probably-won't have a
feminine astronaut if your the best of the rest.

;-)






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
me to summarize for you:

Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.

Well, let's see about that, shall we?


1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

Obviously no bias.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
in an ABX test....")

Obviously no bias.

3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
the subject. Not."

No bias.

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Correct. Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
you did is childish. Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
appreciated that.


Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot.

Well, that ends this "discussion", except for this observation:

You're question was stupid.

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Correct.

Wrong, obviously.

Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
you did is childish.

Most would agree that your question was stupid.

Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
appreciated that.

Great. You and Arny are real tight now, eh?

Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot.

Well, that ends this "discussion",

Looks like you can dish it out but cannot take it, Jenn.

except for this observation:

You're going to "observe" a typo, Jenn? How childish.

You're question was stupid.

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

I guess you told me, Jenn. I guess you're a deeper thinker than what
I gave you credit for. (Rolling eyes)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
bias.


Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution
to the well-known problem of postitive listener
differentiation bias, when using test signals and
artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and
proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what
ABX is.

Could you write in a more pompous and rediculous fashion, Harry?

It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests - ABX is well-known
to be bullet-proof solution to the well-known problem of false positive
results.

Here is what it is not.

IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener
differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might
have such biases)

Again Harry, you've managed to make something simple seem complex. ABX
addresses a problem with false negative results some people hypothesize
exists.

IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener
training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of
open-ended evaluation)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only
roughly half qualify at H-K)

How does that make ABX any different from most other ways of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference
*doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed
to)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when
used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of
audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening
cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?


Furthermore,:

ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct
evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX
box that is no longer available, and whose contacts
may/may not audibly influence the sound

In fact an ABX box is not required to do ABX tests - the ABX box just makes
it more convenient. The purpose of the ABX Comparator is to make it easy to
do valid DBTs all by yourself. If you have an assistant, then you don't need
an ABX box.

Given that thousands of people have done PCABX tests which are basically ABX
tests, Harry is not telling the whole truth here. There is an inexhaustable
supply of PVABX comparators.


AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer
to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use.

"Open--ended" is a Lavo-ism. It's a phrase with no standard aggreed-upon
meaning. It means whatever Harry wants to construe it to mean.

Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard
about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in
product development (which I have a background in,
although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what
I have concluded:

Scientific research:

ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where
it was first used in audio, in order to determine human
threasholds for various forms of distortion, including
compression artifacts. It is best used and most
sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be
trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is
required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful
research tool...for scientiific inquiry.

ABX has very little value in the actual development of
audio gear.

Hmm, maybe Harry is actually going to some much-needed homework ehre.

I've examined the process from several
different angels and have concluded it would be useful
only in a few cases. Consider these common development
scenarios:

Practical Development Efforts:

* The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting
cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know
if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for
"no difference".

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

How do you screen out poor performers.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Bottom line, Harry is just blowing hot wind out of the back of his neck.
Like Mirabel, Harry's vendetta against ABX is well-known and has been
illustrated with many examples.

=======================================

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way to compare
audio components is grist to Krueger's mill. You're trapped now..

You can't discuss a method that has not been validated by research.
What success did you have discussing religion with a Jehovah's witness
crew?
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

No, what we REALLY must come up with is a name for the syndrome that
YOU exhibit, Jenn: Attack a typo after making an error like you did.
lol

In

Jenn wrote:

If you can't deal with it and simply want to
hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response.

I'm "no long worth" a response, Jenn? Do you have any idea how
assinine it is to attack typos, Jenn, especially when you're guilty of
the same "crime"?

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
me to summarize for you:

Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.

Well, let's see about that, shall we?


1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

Obviously no bias.

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
in an ABX test....")

Obviously no bias.

3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
the subject. Not."

No bias.

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Correct. Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
you did is childish. Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
appreciated that.


Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot.

Well, that ends this "discussion", except for this observation:

You're question was stupid.

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

============================

Jenn, will you be going on being polite to this Neanderthal? His
opinions match his image.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Correct.

Wrong, obviously.

Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
you did is childish.

Most would agree that your question was stupid.

They would? I'll remember that if you ever have the curiosity to ask a
question about music.


Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
appreciated that.

Great. You and Arny are real tight now, eh?

Many people judge each situation individually. Evidently, you don't.
You're entitled, I guess.


Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot.

Well, that ends this "discussion",

Looks like you can dish it out but cannot take it, Jenn.

I don't "dish out" things such as calling people on this board idiots.
If you wish to do that, fine, but I have no desire to continue such a
discussion.


except for this observation:

You're going to "observe" a typo, Jenn? How childish.

"Think harder" Dizzy. That's not what I'm observing.

You're question was stupid.

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

I guess you told me, Jenn. I guess you're a deeper thinker than what
I gave you credit for. (Rolling eyes)

What do you think I was observing, Dizzy?

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

No, what we REALLY must come up with is a name for the syndrome that
YOU exhibit, Jenn: Attack a typo after making an error like you did.
lol

In

Jenn wrote:

If you can't deal with it and simply want to
hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response.

I'm "no long worth" a response, Jenn? Do you have any idea how
assinine it is to attack typos, Jenn, especially when you're guilty of
the same "crime"?

What was I "attacking" Dizzy? Hint: it wasn't typos.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Jenn wrote:

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
even HEARD of ABX?

Geez but you're dumb. Come back when you have a clue, OK, Jenn?

100%. If they've ever heard a difference between audio components (or
more accurately, if they don't all sound the same unless they're
broken) they've never heard of ABX.

Case closed.

Next.

I am *so* far above you, Jenn, that I do not know why I bother.

Snot noted.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
listener bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the
great job it has done at convincing home consumers that
contrary to many things published in the high end audio
press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

However I notice that "LP record" gets about 30 times more hits than "ABX
test" on google.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper validating
sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among
audio products.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
the above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

Point?
]
And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that
discussion are....????

2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
simple question: "When participating in an ABX
test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
speakers) using music that is well known to me.


What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg demonstrates its mastery of "the debating trade".

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

I'll bet you still don't have any idea why you're universally reviled,
Arnii. I have a thought -- now that paul has returned from his break,
maybe he'll deign to explain it to you.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is lonely in the Hive today.

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper validating
sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among
audio products.

Arnii, brace yourself before reading on.

human being (n)
1 a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing
the human species
2 (a) having human form or attributes (b) susceptible to or representative
of the sympathies and frailties of human nature


I know that must have been upsetting for you. Give yourself an extra whack
on the head so you can expeditiously return to your customary state of
disoriented babbling.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
the above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

Point?
]
And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that
discussion are....????

I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.


2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
simple question: "When participating in an ABX
test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
speakers) using music that is well known to me.


What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
the store or home situation.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're
looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
listener bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the
great job it has done at convincing home consumers that
contrary to many things published in the high end audio
press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

However I notice that "LP record" gets about 30 times more hits than "ABX
test" on google.

So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of convincing home
consumers of anything? It seems more than reasonable to conclude that
the vast majority home audio consumers have never heard of it.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
even HEARD of ABX?

Geez but you're dumb. Come back when you have a clue, OK, Jenn?

100%. If they've ever heard a difference between audio components (or
more accurately, if they don't all sound the same unless they're
broken) they've never heard of ABX.

Case closed.

Next.

I am *so* far above you, Jenn, that I do not know why I bother.

Snot noted.

;-)

Lots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

If the listener has control of the source
selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for
solutions....they're looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
listener bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
the great job it has done at convincing home consumers
that contrary to many things published in the high end
audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of
money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
convincing home consumers of anything?

There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD
format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that
are less accurate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
the above. Allow me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

Point?
]
And your explanation for your ignorance of significant
details of that discussion are....????

I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.


2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
simple question: "When participating in an ABX
test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
speakers) using music that is well known to me.


What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

None that I know of.

I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny.

Delusions of omnisicence noted.

No "omnisicence" required. I know a fake when I see it (you).

When you have works in the Library of Congress listing you
as the recording engineer, please let me know, Sugar Pants. .


Powell, how can you say that I've never attended seminars,

Hehehe... right!


visited trade shows,

Hehehe... right again!


and read audio industry-related periodicals?

Broke-A$$®, you can't even afford a magazine
subscription or a professional membership... who
are you trying to kid?

You lied to Atkinson and me about your readily
available library access to AES journals. Why is
that? If you could control your ego you wouldn't
need to falsely pretend to be someone you're not.


Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch
me 24/7?

No need. You spend all you time posting to USEnet, you
have no life worth monitoring. I suspect that your wife
is a sweetheart who abides living with an abusive person.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class.

Yea, that and your antiquated web site... best dogs
in show, mr. Eukanuba.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
differences among audio products.


Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
discussion, Arny?"

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch
me 24/7?

No need. You spend all you time posting to USEnet, you
have no life worth monitoring. I suspect that your wife
is a sweetheart who abides living with an abusive person.

Actually, the poor thing is heavily medicated, partly to treat her own
illness and partly to dull the pain of being stuck with Mr. ****.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
differences among audio products.


Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
discussion, Arny?"

So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
not a viable alternative. What is?

ScottW

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
speakers) using music that is well known to me.

You forgot....in the store or home.


What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
the store or home situation.

I can see a problem in the store but I think we all accept that even
sighted
listening is problematic for comparing gear in most stores.
But what is preventing you from conducting the tests in your home?

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
differences among audio products.


Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
this
discussion, Arny?"

So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
not a viable alternative. What is?


If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
evaluation fairly sensitive to do. And if I wanted to do a validation test,
I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.

For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
want to buy.

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
differences among audio products.


Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
this
discussion, Arny?"

So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
not a viable alternative. What is?


If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
evaluation fairly sensitive to do.

What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
were
inconclusive?

BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
of
providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.

And if I wanted to do a validation test,
I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.

For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
want to buy.

I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
and
the hobbyist could read about those results as well.

ScottW

[vlad]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
differences among audio products.


Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
this
discussion, Arny?"

So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
not a viable alternative. What is?


If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
evaluation fairly sensitive to do. And if I wanted to do a validation test,
I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.

For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
want to buy.

If all people in audio industry (designers, manufacturers and
reviewers) would be professional and honest then your approach would
work just fine.

However this industry is full of snake oil salesmen pushing on public
their overpriced stuff that does nothing in a best case and hurts sound
as a rule. Should I mention overpriced cables, incompetent designs,
digital lenses, etc.? I think, it is the obligation of knowledgeable
people to explain to less knowing audiophile's real value of these
"magical cures".

Objective test would be highly desirable for exposing of real merits of
pieces of hardware. However IMO, the average "high-ender" prefers
subjective means even at a price of being robbed by snake-oil pushers.

vlad

[George M. Middius]

vladborg jostles with the Krooborg for the front-and-center position on
the aBxism pulpit.

However this industry is full of snake oil salesmen pushing on public
their overpriced stuff that does nothing in a best case and hurts sound
as a rule.

Say it, brotherborg! Hallelujah!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.