I see that Rahe is again full of postings about blind tests and ABX.
I recall that the topic was banned by the Big Brother some
months ago. Oh well perhaps he realised that this hardy perennial is
the very life-blood of RAHE. What else has it got to offer? Vinyl
better than CD? Or is it vice versa?

As usual one sees lot of appeals to the supposed intuitive
truths and of course homages to science in the form of "I'm a
better scientist than Thou". There is also a lot of ,way over my
head, speculations about how the brain works, the nature of perception
and similar esoterics. Do they know? Does anyone?
The avowed object of DBTs is to eliminate the bugbear of
"bias'. As though sighted bias were the only one to overcome before
reaching an utopian target of "testing". Human judgments on
anything under the sun and especially human aesthetic judgments are
nothing but a bundle of biases built into individual perceptions. We
are born with them like with different fingerprints and different
neuronal DNA and we acquire more through different education,
experience, exposure. Hundreds of thousands live happily with the
mass-component product. And they judge from a different set of
perceptions, assumptions and biases from the devoted "audiophiles- a
tiny minorityscorned by the mass-market.
But let us assume that eliminating the sighted bias is the
true road to the Mecca of testing validly for differences between
components. This is the hypothesis " Blinded test in the form of ABX
is an appropriate tool to show differences between audio
components." The corollary is that the difference thus demonstrated
is a necessary basis for preference. Granted. Otherwise what earthly
use would it be.
The kind of research that I had learnt was based on a
simplistic principle: "The proof of pudding is in the eating". If
you claim you have a method to achieve a target the onus is on you to
show that IT WORKS. It can seem logical, scientific, common-sensical,
whatever. No matter. It has to WORK. And it has to work in the field
for which you propose it: differences between audio components. The
fact that it works in medical, psychological or other research is
irrelevant. The royal and only road to validation is through experiment
using electronically comparable audio components.
To me the problems of the set-up protocol seem
insurmountable. What kind and what degree of difference? Between
electrically comparable cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers, cartridges,
speakers, pianos, violins? How do you select an audience representative
for gender, age, experience, musical exposure etc. But I may be
mistaken and somehow somewhere a convincing research protocol exists.
BUT if so when and where was this research done? Did
anyone ever reported results using a representative and numerically
convincing audience that indeed did distinguish between *any comparable
components whatsoever* with statistical validity? References, please?
So far all the available, published material on ABX testing of
components resulted in the nul, "no difference" outcome. So much
for the "Forget the cables- I'll invest in better speakers" tune
a la Ferstler et al. Where exactly is the evidence that DBTS are good
for distinguishing between speakers? Of Harmon-Kardon research
group found abysmal failure to distinguish between speakers in his
large group using DBT. But the same people convincingly PREFERRED
fuller frequency range speakers.
Maybe some of our "scientists" truly believe that
all the components are equal. Till they show that their method WORKS to
show ANY differences between ANY comparable components others will
believe that for many instead of helping the DBTs interfere with
recognition of the (so-called) high-end differences. Another unproven
"belief" in a sphere of life where beliefs only can possibly exist

In no other sphere of aesthetic perception is this
chimera of an "objective test" being promoted. You believe Robert
Parker on wines not because he has a "method" but because you trust
his innate ability to judge backed by experience. Berenson did not
write down a "scientific method" to judge if a painting was
original or not. People trusted his judgment and paid him for it. And
it does not matter a tinker's cuss if millions can not tell the
difference between Gallo and Chateau Haut Brion or between Ghirlandaio
and a cheap icon. Who is "right"? The two who can or the million
who can not? And who cares? They are all happy with their opinions.
It is true though that differences between wines and
paintings are not taught at the undergraduate engineering courses
together with the introductory audio chapters.
The craving for a "test" does not stop being comical
even though humanly touching.

Regards Ludwik Mirabel

Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging
prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since one
can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately it's
worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best.
Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like the
WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can afford it and
think it's great, hey, it's your money.

said:

But let us assume that eliminating the sighted bias is the
true road to the Mecca of testing validly for differences between
components. This is the hypothesis " Blinded test in the form of ABX
is an appropriate tool to show differences between audio
components." The corollary is that the difference thus demonstrated
is a necessary basis for preference. Granted. Otherwise what earthly
use would it be.

After all this time, you should realize that the "testing" mantra is a
charade. The 'borgs have fastened on "testing" to suit their own agenda,
which is class warfare. The whole idea of applying some half-assed,
jerry-rigged version of "science" to selecting consumer goods is a joke.

Call a 'borg a 'borg and be done with it.

L Mirabel wrote




I see that Rahe is again full of postings about blind tests and ABX.
I recall that the topic was banned by the Big Brother some
months ago. Oh well perhaps he realised that this hardy perennial is
the very life-blood of RAHE.


LoL ! .............and why? It's because the moderator hmm, whats his
name... wants to gather his disciples and sycophants under his dress
for some quick milking of his one and lonely nipple ... LOL!!

Therefore, Ferstler went there and pay him a visit ! lol!


Nevertheless, your post seems a direct challenge to those flock. Oh,
and about the guy with the dress who happen to appoint himself on
that post .............................................. hmmm
....................
.................... hmmmm hmmm hm.............. his agenda is showing!

calcerise wrote


Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging
prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since
one can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately
it's worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best.
Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like
the WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can
afford it and think it's great, hey, it's your money.





I seem to recall myself initially thinking back then you were a somewhat
passionate fancier in as far as using dbts for the purpose of assuring
presence of subtle diff. among audio gears. Of course, I could be wrong.

Was I right?

Agree with every word of this cogent, brief posting..
Ludovic Mirabel
wrote in message
oups.com...
Double blind testing is great for things like artery-clogging
prevention medicines. For audio it's an amusing exercise but since one
can't DBT one's own ears or perceptual "brain codec" ultimately it's
worth very little. Buy the wine and audio equipment you like best.
Some are overpriced by my judgment, yours may differ. If you like the
WAVAC 833-or anything by Madrigal or Wilson Audio-and can afford it and
think it's great, hey, it's your money.