| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#161
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Better Than ABX?
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... 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? I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both samples rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and order bias). BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable of providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers. I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the test. 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. I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. Fortunately, I worked 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such research is a way of life. To give you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually testing, or buying data to analyze). |
|
#162
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"George M. Middius" wrote 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. ****. So a music metaphor might be, Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell, Paradise by the Dashboard Lights. And not the cheap CD version either, I'm talking CBS Master Sound Half-Speed Mastered LP. The Mrs. would then be, 'praying for the end of time to hurry-up and arrive.' No?  |
|
#163
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: 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. Let's start at the start. You market a switch for the recognition of small differences between audio components not I. I said more than once that diferent folks hear differently depending on their preferences, musical education etc. Factors too numerous to keep relisting in the hope that one day it will get inside thick heads. Especially hopeless when the thick heads invested 40 years of promoting their quack remedy. It is your privilege to market a quack* prescription. It is mine to point out it is based on thin air. It is yours to lie about your imaginary research underlying your quack remedy. "definately" accepted by JAES. It is mine to show you up. It is yours to hope the letter from Toronto University denying that any contributions by A. or AB. Krueger ever appeared in JAES slides into oblivion. I notice you had nothing to say about it. It is mine to remind you of it every time you think you can blur the issues. Ludovic Mirabel *Quack remedy. A remedy without any evidential, research backing. |
|
#164
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"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?" Harry, you mentioned sighted evaluations simply by posting your name. Everybody knows that you lack the expertiese, devotion to accuracy and audio expertise required to perform a proper bias-controlled listening test. You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies. |
|
#165
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
ScottW wrote: 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 =========================================== ScottW says: I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques and the hobbyist could read about those results as well. Still yearning for a recipe for most plesurable listening.ScottW We're not in the area of commercial marketing.of commercial wares. We're in the area of likes and dislikes, of aesthetic preferences. .Any "test" would be testees, human beings with different genetics, sex, different musical preferences and education. It would be read by thousands of human beings with different genetics, sex, different musical preferences and education. If it were signed by J.Gordon Holt or Kal Rubinson I'd take notice of it on well grounded chance that their preferences meet mine. If it were signed by many others...into the waste paper basket. Not an effort worth making.. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#166
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in 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. You draw unsupported conclusions. No wonder you're a hack as a 'scientist.' The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill." But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." Now you seem to be OK with people prederring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format." Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is? Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-) ________________________________________ Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet |
|
#167
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue or a scientific issue. Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero testing. |
|
#168
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: 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. no relevant reply |
|
#169
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Has the Krooborg been saddled with a ghostborg? expertiese expertise A new version of "selective editing", courtesy of Dr. Not. ;-) -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#170
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krooborg demands: "Feed my victimhood!"
The Krooborg is feeling neglected. Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic] scientific paper validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among audio products. no relevant reply Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply offended your delicate sensibilities: You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover. You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job. Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-) -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#171
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote: 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 Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose |
|
#172
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. 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. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average consumer. |
|
#173
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od 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. What does the above have to do with ABX? |
|
#174
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"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 , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od 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. What does the above have to do with ABX? ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. |
|
#175
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od ig y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . pr od 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. What does the above have to do with ABX? ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers have agreed with their dollars. Well, good on 'em. |
|
#176
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"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 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. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average consumer. Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people. I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational as ABX could help you. The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it spawned. |
|
#177
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Jenn" wrote in
message In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: 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 Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose. Jenn won't accept any compromises, This allows here to justify not changing her thinking. |
|
#178
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
|
|
#179
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in 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. You draw unsupported conclusions. No wonder you're a hack as a 'scientist.' The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill." But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." Now you seem to be OK with people prederring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format." Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is? Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-) Oh, come on now, Shhh. You miss the point. The iPod and MP3 players are digital. That gives them Arny's seal of approval automatically. Oh, I'm sorry, you did mention "religion" in another post, didn't you? :-) |
|
#180
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Harry Lavo wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... 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? I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both samples rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and order bias). The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I also find it a bit interesting in this test scenario that the preference will be influenced by the selected standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results will be "good". Would you review everything against your personal preferred components? BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable of providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers. I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the test. 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. I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. I don't think all that is necessary for implementing testing during reviews. I'm sure a relatively simple automated AB or ABX tester wouldn't be very difficult to develop. PC or laptop based and it could be easily configured for AB difference, preference ABX etc. Most have been done before. Once available reviewers would be able to self test with only a moderate amount of trust required. They needn't even know results. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. You're talking about market research while I'm thinking of a much simpler scale applied by the reviewers. ScottW |
|
#181
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue or a scientific issue. Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero testing. The defender of "scientific proof" stands upright, lance vertical and still, his banner attached and flapping gently in the wind. He is ready to smite the Legions of Harry. Ever vigilant, he has his synched PC samples ready for the showdown. (to be continued). |
|
#182
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"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 , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message od 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. What does the above have to do with ABX? Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from expensive sound. Arny's ABX box gave birth to "Best Buy". Arny's ABX box is the *reason* CD's succeeded. Arny has single handedly liberated the masses from their analog yoke via his ABX box.....without them even being aware of it! Arny's just knows this is so! |
|
#183
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
Jenn wrote: In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: 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 Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose I've posted a link to a box design based on readily available parts. Cost was estimated at ~ $100. Getting gear depends on your purpose. If you're in the market most hi-end sales have at least some return period for a home trial. Personally, I don't bother with it either.... but I don't refute the validity of the tests for those who want to "prove" something. ScottW |
|
#184
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krooborg demands: "Feed my victimhood!"
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:45:11 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: The Krooborg is feeling neglected. Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic] scientific paper validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among audio products. no relevant reply Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply offended your delicate sensibilities: You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover. You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job. Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-) Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas. |
|
#185
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Harry Lavo wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... 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? I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both samples rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and order bias). The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I also find it a bit interesting in this test scenario that the preference will be influenced by the selected standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results will be "good". Would you review everything against your personal preferred components? Yes, I'd always have a known benchmark as one of the variables. One of my reservations about how the audio mags (all of them) do their evaluations is that they never keep a known, standard, benchmark system for comparison...so what comparisons are made are always against a rolling standard. Actually, Tony Cordesman probably comes closest in that regard, as he has used the same speakers for years, and seems to use them as a reference. John continues to use a Linn, but I can't remember a turntable review by him recently, if ever. BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable of providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers. I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the test. 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. I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. I don't think all that is necessary for implementing testing during reviews. I'm sure a relatively simple automated AB or ABX tester wouldn't be very difficult to develop. PC or laptop based and it could be easily configured for AB difference, preference ABX etc. Most have been done before. Once available reviewers would be able to self test with only a moderate amount of trust required. They needn't even know results. Well, yes that could be done. But first I would want the test validated for open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that in turn would require a large scale validation test (what you call a market research test) in order to determine if the simpler tests can give the same results. At this point based on what I know, I would not start by trying to use ABX. Instead I'd use a simpler and more useful comparison test....prefer A, prefer B, prefer both equally....with statistical evaluation to follow. Actually, we did pretty extensive test development while I was with General Foods and found that five or seven point scales showed the most discrimination...but they are harder to evaluate statistically. So if I had the statistical knowledge in the form of a third party, I'd probably go with a five point: "greatly prefer A", "slightly prefer A", "prefer both equally", "slightly prefer B", and "greatly prefer B". Of course the test must be blind, and A and B must be random and balanced, and must not be labeled A and B. We actually used odd nomenclature to avoid even labeling bias: 571 vs. 584, for example. Or I vs. J. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. You're talking about market research while I'm thinking of a much simpler scale applied by the reviewers. ScottW |
|
#186
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krooborg demands: "Feed my victimhood!"
paul packer said: The Krooborg is feeling neglected. Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic] scientific paper validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among audio products. no relevant reply Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply offended your delicate sensibilities: You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover. You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job. Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-) Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas. I don't celebrate Xmas personally, but in fact my reply to Krooger's whinging was not unkind. You will note that my post has no mentions of how Mr. **** encourages his poor wife to turn tricks in the alley, nor any exhortations for him to do away with himself. Nor did I mention Krooger's krazy, krappy version of kristianity. How much more kindness does Turdborg deserve? -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#187
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message . com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message y. com In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ig y. 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. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average consumer. Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people. When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct. I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational as ABX could help you. I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that nothing as normal as the enjoyment of music reaches you. The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it spawned. Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear. |
|
#188
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article .com, "ScottW" wrote: 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 Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose. Jenn won't accept any compromises, This allows here to justify not changing her thinking. Are you getting enough sleep? |
|
#189
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Krooborg demands: "Feed my victimhood!"
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:11:46 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: The Krooborg is feeling neglected. Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic] scientific paper validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among audio products. no relevant reply Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply offended your delicate sensibilities: You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover. You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job. Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-) Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas. I don't celebrate Xmas personally, but in fact my reply to Krooger's whinging was not unkind. You will note that my post has no mentions of how Mr. **** encourages his poor wife to turn tricks in the alley, nor any exhortations for him to do away with himself. Nor did I mention Krooger's krazy, krappy version of kristianity. How much more kindness does Turdborg deserve? You are indeed the epitome of human compassion, George. |
|
#190
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ps.com... Arny Krueger wrote: "Jenn" wrote in 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. The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill." Sure they do, but probably not in exactly those terms. But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." What's the difference in the real world? Nothing. You're just playing with words. Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit. This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. I don't "short circuit". If anything its you who short circuit when you demonstrate your confusion over inputs and outputs. As usual Robert you've misrepresented everything because you have no appreciation for the basics. I simply find it very interesting when people are so prejudices and biased that they repeatedly claim that an audibly inaccurate format does a more realistic job of reproducing sounds than one that can be audibly accurate. I suspect its a study in personal bias - one where a person has been educated to believe that in essence, black is white. I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format." It's the same problem - the SET and LP bigots are examples of bias gone amok - they seem to truely believe that something that is audibly flawed is the reference standard, and that there is something inherently wrong with a mediaum that can be sonically transparent. These people believe that black is white, and up is down. In contrast, the so-called high resolution formats have failed in the marketplace because they have nothing that is real and tangible to sell. They are selling the emperor's new britches. The public is not impressed with a public display of the bare butts of people who prefer trousers made of whole cloth. Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is? Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-) The irony is that the person making this joke is well-known for their lack of personal awareness. Who tried to sue Drexel University for a PhD? The regulars on RAP are having a lot of fun at your expense Robert because you have no clue about real world audio. |
|
#191
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from expensive sound. Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong with that? Or, Harry are you under the impression that only expensive sound is good sound, and all reasonably-priced sound is bad sound? |
|
#192
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is beyond you, Harry. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example. Or, do you have some critiques for them? But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. Prove it. Fortunately, I worked 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such research is a way of life. Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse of consumer testing by his employers. To give you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually testing, or buying data to analyze). We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because they aren't spending enough money? Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo. The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend megabucks. It is all about money, and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of audio products is way beyond the budget of the average audiophile. |
|
#193
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I also find it a bit interesting in this test scenario that the preference will be influenced by the selected standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results will be "good". Would you review everything against your personal preferred components? Harry's definition of an "Inconclusive test": One that does not support the validity of the snake-oil technology that captured his fancy this week. Yes, I'd always have a known benchmark as one of the variables. Whatever that means. One of my reservations about how the audio mags (all of them) do their evaluations is that they never keep a known, standard, benchmark system for comparison...so what comparisons are made are always against a rolling standard. It's not that difficult in many cases. The absolute standard for every CD player, every preamp, and every amplifier or its equivalent is the same - a short straight piece of wire. Of course the snake oil merchants that Harry seems to think are credible have even fuzzed up this picture - they've raised the question of how pure the copper in the wire needs to be, whether it must actually be silver, whether stranded wire is OK, and what the insulation around the wire needs to be made out of. Actually, Tony Cordesman probably comes closest in that regard, as he has used the same speakers for years, and seems to use them as a reference. False claim. Cordesman says in a relatively recent review: http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site..._Cordesman.pdf "I should also note that I am convinced enough with the overall merits of Thiel designs to use the Thiel CS7.2 as one om my references." Key phrase: "one of my references". We don't know which reference he is using at any given time without decoding his reviews, and if then. |
|
#194
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue or a scientific issue. Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero testing. The defender of "scientific proof" stands upright, lance vertical and still, his banner attached and flapping gently in the wind. He is ready to smite the Legions of Harry. Ever vigilant, he has his synched PC samples ready for the showdown. (to be continued). Note Harry's promise to fabricate even more childish BS of the kind shown above. Be still my heart! |
|
#195
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is beyond you, Harry. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example. Or, do you have some critiques for them? But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. Prove it. Fortunately, I worked 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such research is a way of life. Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse of consumer testing by his employers. To give you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually testing, or buying data to analyze). We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because they aren't spending enough money? Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo. The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend megabucks. It is all about money, and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of audio products is way beyond the budget of the average audiophile. Notice Arny's lack of substantive reply....just an attack on using experts to do a professional job of research because they cost money. And, BTW, who do you supose works with those experts to define objectives, discuss proposed designs, althernatives, and options, attend sessions to monitor, and review and discuss results? And who has over 23 years of experience doing this? Hint: it's not Arny. |
|
#196
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from expensive sound. Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong with that? Or, Harry are you under the impression that only expensive sound is good sound, and all reasonably-priced sound is bad sound? Did you specialize in non-sequitor in college, Arny? |
|
#197
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from expensive sound. Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong with that? Or, Harry are you under the impression that only expensive sound is good sound, and all reasonably-priced sound is bad sound? Did you specialize in non-sequitor in college, Arny? No Harry, but reading your posts has re-introduced me to the concept. |
|
#198
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue or a scientific issue. Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero testing. Not an "omitted center" Arny...an almost completely "omitted logic". Arny's motto: "non-sequitors are us" |
|
#199
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "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?" Harry, you mentioned sighted evaluations simply by posting your name. Everybody knows that you lack the expertiese, devotion to accuracy and audio expertise required to perform a proper bias-controlled listening test. You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies. Another non-sequitor non-response from our man Arnold. |
|
#200
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Better Than ABX?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests. But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is beyond you, Harry. If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done. It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example. Or, do you have some critiques for them? But it takes lots of time and money to organize and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation. Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the sophistication to want to do so. Prove it. Fortunately, I worked 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such research is a way of life. Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse of consumer testing by his employers. To give you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually testing, or buying data to analyze). We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because they aren't spending enough money? Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo. The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend megabucks. It is all about money, and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of audio products is way beyond the budget of the average audiophile. Notice Arny's lack of substantive reply....just an attack on using experts to do a professional job of research because they cost money. There is no such thing, except in your mind, Harry. And, BTW, who do you supose works with those experts to define objectives, discuss proposed designs, althernatives, and options, attend sessions to monitor, and review and discuss results? And who has over 23 years of experience doing this? Hint: it's not Arny. The bottom line Harry is that with your years of pontificating on the matter, you have nothing but irrelevant criticisms to bring to the table. Harry, it is quite clear to me that you're playing the Atkinson card - falsely make good subjective tests too complex and expensive for anybody to be able to do, and then use those likes to give yourself free passes to foist the most specious crap that can be imagined onto the world of audio. |
Linear Mode
