Foresseeably Scottie is ready to keep
going on and on with his kind of argument:
1) "You're lying that Sean Olive's
article shows that "Is it different?" is
the wrong question to ask-(the right one being:
"Which one do you like better?")
2) I give numerous quotes to the effect that
was exactly what his conclusions were.
3) "Ah, but this is not why he didn't use
ABX"
4) We can now embark on the endless topic
of ABX.
5) 0.14 db difference is beyond the
hearing ability of most humans. Greenhil
allowed it because he felt it
did not invalidate his project.
He did not set out in the pop "Stereo Review"
on a research projectto define the limits of
audibility. He wanted to decide if one kind of
cable is better than another for consumer use
6) "Ah but 3 out of 11 panelists heard it
with pink noise".
&) The topic is now diverted into: What
exactly did Greenhill know or did not know,the
proper use of statistics and so on and on and
on. Nothing of audio consumer interest.
But what else is new? Looking through
Scotties activities in RAO all one sees is
endless nit-picking designed to show that
Scottie can win verbal dodges.

I said Scottie was a sea-lawyer. On second

thoughts I'll go further: he is a lawyer. Or more
likely, considering his intellectual level, a
paralegal looking for verbal loopholes for his
ambulance chasing boss. In any case he's not in
any profession where argument is settled by
experimental evidence. He does not even have
an inkling of what THAT is all about.
I repeat: he should stick
to politics. There if you can't shout louder you
can at leat bore your opponent and your audience
into semiconscioussness. He achieved that with
me.
He can go on all by himself as Tallulah Bankhead
said to a suitor when she was late for a bedroom
date.
======================

wrote:
I ScottW apparently intends to go on with a typical RAO
pseudodiscussion of "Who will build the strawmen fastest"
I see little point in going on toe -to-toe with someone who:
1)quotes his own ability to hear a difference of 1(one) decibel-
well within the limit of audibility for most people- as evidence that
0.16 of a db. (zero, one sixth) difference could be heard too. If the
cables were audibly different by volume then everybody not just 3 out
of 11 panelists would hear it and Monster would be a winner. By 0.16 of
a decibel!


Very interesting that you now claim everyone must have the same hearing

acuity.


To push this idiocy further Scottie says that recognition of
volume difference was Greenhill's PURPOSE- he knew about it.


Anothter blatan lie. I said no such thing.
All I said was that it was one outcome, probably not expected.


And his
foolish readers thought it was all about: "Is one cable better than the
other"

2) Refers me to Greenhill for an answer as to why he would
bother to make such a pointless joke of a "research". He does not tell
what Greenhill would say in response to such an idiot question.
Obviously Greenhill designed his research with the idea of
getting a sensible result. And on the evidence he knows infinitely more
about research and research statistics than our Scottie.
3) He denies that S.Olive's research showed that people perform
better when asked "Which one you prefer? rather than "Are they
different from each other"? Over that wording interpretation difference
he had the brass to call me a liar



deLudo... please quit claiming things I never said.


When I quote S. Olive's unequivocal figures and conclusions
he clumsily attempts to divert the argument into pro or against ABX-
typical strawman building.


Wasn't that your argument from the beginning. Thats what I was
saying,
that Olives work isn't relevant to a discussion of ABX.

Nice to see you finally agree with me.



Yes. Olive does not denounce ABX. He just
did not use it. And his results explain why. With ABX his listeners
Performance in discriminating would be even worse.


Conclusion not supported at all by the available data.

deLudo.... if you wanted to know peoples preference among 4 speakers,
please design a test protocol using ABX that would identify peoples
preference. Perhaps you will finally see why Olive chose not to use
ABX
and you could stop making crap up.


ScottW

wrote in message
oups.com

deLudo.... if you wanted to know peoples preference among
4 speakers, please design a test protocol using ABX that
would identify peoples preference. Perhaps you will
finally see why Olive chose not to use ABX
and you could stop making crap up.

Google searching shows that I've posted the following text or its
equivalent, about 150 times, on groups that Mirabel has posted to:

"ABX is not a preference test".

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

deLudo.... if you wanted to know peoples preference among
4 speakers, please design a test protocol using ABX that
would identify peoples preference. Perhaps you will
finally see why Olive chose not to use ABX
and you could stop making crap up.

Google searching shows that I've posted the following text or its
equivalent, about 150 times, on groups that Mirabel has posted to:

"ABX is not a preference test".

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Interesting. Please explain then why should anyone
in an
audio group take any interest in it.
And if it is useful for identifying differences
between
audio components in research give a few references to such use
published in a reputable research mag. like JAES. My info is that JAES
avoids component comparisons. Sean Olive is an exception. And he did
not. Who did?
And if itis not a preference test why don't you
advise
those who do an ABX comparison with a negative, "no difference"
result (are there any others?) to ignore it and buy what sounds
best to them
And finally do please reconcile your convictions
with
those of your collaborator and I think one time ABX co-developer
Carlstrom. He says:
(www.oakland.edu/-djcarlstr/abx_bino.htm)
"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX
test result is not a preference......If ....a difference is heard,
selecting
one's preference is easy and completely justified"

Which one of you two broadcasts the miscoception? You or
Carlstrom?
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

deLudo.... if you wanted to know peoples preference among
4 speakers, please design a test protocol using ABX that
would identify peoples preference. Perhaps you will
finally see why Olive chose not to use ABX
and you could stop making crap up.

Google searching shows that I've posted the following text or its
equivalent, about 150 times, on groups that Mirabel has posted to:

"ABX is not a preference test".

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

Interesting. Please explain then why should anyone
in an
audio group take any interest in it.
And if it is useful for identifying differences
between
audio components in research give a few references to such use
published in a reputable research mag. like JAES. My info is that JAES
avoids component comparisons. Sean Olive is an exception. And he did
not. Who did?
And if itis not a preference test why don't you
advise
those who do an ABX comparison with a negative, "no difference"
result (are there any others?) to ignore it and buy what sounds
best to them
And finally do please reconcile your convictions
with
those of your collaborator and I think one time ABX co-developer
Carlstrom. He says:
(www.oakland.edu/-djcarlstr/abx_bino.htm)
"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX
test result is not a preference......If ....a difference is heard,
selecting
one's preference is easy and completely justified"

Which one of you two broadcasts the miscoception? You or

How about the whole text deLudo?

"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
result is not a preference: it doesn't tell which audio component sounds
better. While literally true, if an ABX test confirms a difference is heard,
selecting one's preference is easy and completely justified."

"I also think you should read this part as well: The ABX Double Blind
Comparison is set up as much as possible like the Double Blind Tests used by
pharmaceutical houses to prove new medicines are effective. The ABX
Comparator can of course be used in other experimental designs.
In the scientific method an experiment is designed in advance and run
only when the design is complete. The design sets what is to be tested by
specifying a hypothesis which the experiment tests. In an ABX Double Blind
Comparison both the hypothesis and its opposite are important:
HYPOTHESIS: The difference between Component A and Component B can be
heard.
NULL HYPOTHESIS: A sounds the same as B.
In the ABX Double Blind Comparison the goal is to statistically disprove the
null hypothesis to confirm the hypothesis. "

And from the page on placebos:
"In summary placebos are used because it is normal for people to feel
better when treated by a healer whether or not the healer gives effective
medicine or snake oil. This fact of feeling better when treated with or
without an effective treatment is called the placebo effect. That is the
placebo effect is the fact that people feel better even when given a
treatment that does nothing.
No one knows why this is true, but we have proof that it happens. I
emphasize this because critics often try to respond to the many theories of
what might cause the placebo effect. We don't know what causes it, but we do
have solid proof that it does happen.
In comparing audio components the same thing happens. A new component
will usually sound different from the old component. This holds true even
when the component is identical, as when a trick comparison is done of one
component with itself. Here too, no one knows why it happens, but there is
proof that it does.
Just as the placebo effect is removed from a drug test by a double
blind procedure, we can remove it from an audio comparison by preventing the
listener from knowing which component is which.
With this control, it becomes much harder for the listener to tell
which component he is listening to. But if he hears a difference, we can be
sure it is a real difference, not an auditory placebo effect. "


You really need to read more on the ABX site. You might actually learn how
wrong you are.

Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"? Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

George M. Middius wrote:
Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"? Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

That will be a day when I'll be learning about placebos
from an ABX site. Placebos affect +/- 25 to 40 % of people studied
in the real life medical research DBT- with randomised controls,
representative population sample, proper ststistical basis etc etc.
Controls make it easier to recognise the suggestible one third of
the subjects. The 25 to 40% are very likely the same people
who but Rolex on the web and who get a lovely warm feeling
when they hear that they were always right- Citizen Radio is as
good as ART. Quite a few of them write for RAO.

In medical research the final outcome is checked by objective
findings,: course of the disease, bodily, Xray and lab changes.
Not ticks on paper while trying to compare musical fragment X with the
memory of A and B.
No wonder best results are with pink noise- my favourite disk
when I listen at home.
Ludovic Mirabel

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:04:51 GMT, wrote:

Why is it that your posts have the words scattered all over the page?
wrote in message
roups.com...

Why do you top post?

The world is full of rhetorical questions, but most of them don't need
to be shared on USENET.

Oh yeah, for you to complain about formatting is one of the most
hilarious thing I've ever reade. Do you ever even see YOUR posts in
RAO?

dave weil said:

Why is it that your posts have the words scattered all over the page?

Why do you top post?

silence from Mickey

The world is full of rhetorical questions, but most of them don't need
to be shared on USENET.

inchoate gurgling from Mickey

Oh yeah, for you to complain about formatting is one of the most
hilarious thing I've ever reade. Do you ever even see YOUR posts in
RAO?

Of course not. Don't you remember? Mickey killfiled himself.

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:31:07 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Oh yeah, for you to complain about formatting is one of the most
hilarious thing (sic) I've ever reade.

Damn...without coffee, apparently I write in Middle English...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Foresseeably Scottie is ready to keep
going on and on with his kind of argument:

Sorry deLudo... but no. I think ...if anyone here
even really cares about the facts...that you have been
shown to have little respect for them...and
your conclusions deserve scrutiny rather
than blind acceptance.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 00:04:51 GMT, wrote:

Why is it that your posts have the words scattered all over the page?
wrote in message
groups.com...

Why do you top post?


I don't normally, but I wanted to make sure that he saw this.

The world is full of rhetorical questions, but most of them don't need
to be shared on USENET.

LOL, then you'll stop as well?

Oh yeah, for you to complain about formatting is one of the most
hilarious thing I've ever reade. Do you ever even see YOUR posts in
RAO?

All the time, they look fine in Outlook Express.

Deludo's posts are the only I've ever seen that have the text scattered ove
the page that way.

Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with their
being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't want
any new meds that weren't.

wrote in message
news

Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message ...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with their
being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't want
any new meds that weren't.


But you keep insisting that WE partake of them.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Foresseeably Scottie is ready to keep
going on and on with his kind of argument:

Sorry deLudo... but no. I think ...if anyone here
even really cares about the facts...that you have been
shown to have little respect for them...and
your conclusions deserve scrutiny rather
than blind acceptance.

ScottW

Don't you daydream about being a prosecutor in a prewar
German People's Court?
Or a Vishinski? You'd make short shrift of people holding wrong views.
Regards Ludovic M.

In article .com,
wrote:

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Foresseeably Scottie is ready to keep
going on and on with his kind of argument:

Sorry deLudo... but no. I think ...if anyone here
even really cares about the facts...that you have been
shown to have little respect for them...and
your conclusions deserve scrutiny rather
than blind acceptance.

Don't you daydream about being a prosecutor in a prewar
German People's Court?
Or a Vishinski? You'd make short shrift of people holding wrong views.

All those good lamp posts going to waste...

Stephen

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:55:13 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:31:07 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Oh yeah, for you to complain about formatting is one of the most
hilarious thing (sic) I've ever reade.

Damn...without coffee, apparently I write in Middle English...

Can we expect a re-interpretation of The Canterbury Tales any time
soon? :-)

wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:
wrote in message
news

Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message ...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with their
being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't want
any new meds that weren't.


Regretfully he ommitted the full details of his epoch-making
discovery.
Presumably it goes something like this:
First researcher:"This guy has bacterial endocarditis.
If he doesn't get penicillin he's sure to die"
2nd researcher: "But I got funded to find out if this new drug works.
Let's give him one week of penicillin and then one week of my drug. If
at
the end of two
weeks he's still alive we'll give him one or the other and ask him
which one
was it most like Penicillin or my new one"
"Great. Now we're really making waves"
Ludovic M.


But you keep insisting that WE partake of them.

The hifi semiliterate huckster invented a new medical research
tool.
Medical ABX.
How did we ever manage without it? I'm notifying the Medical Res. Ccil
my former employers to invite him to lecture on it forthwith.
Ludovic Mirabel

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
oups.com

You'd make short shrift of people holding wrong views.

In your case Mirabel, it would be like turning off a LP with its needle
locked in a groove.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
news

Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message ...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many
have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with
their being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio
researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't
want any new meds that weren't.


But you keep insisting that WE partake of them.


I have not insisted you partake of any drugs of any kind. Why whaddya got?

As to audio ABX, I've simply said thathad you done any you would have
learned more about real vs. illusory improvements. You insist that you
prefer to spend your money on improvements that probably don't acutally
exist, that's your perogitive.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
news

Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message ...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many
have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with
their being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio
researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't
want any new meds that weren't.


But you keep insisting that WE partake of them.


I have not insisted you partake of any drugs of any kind. Why whaddya
got?

As to audio ABX, I've simply said thathad you done any you would have
learned more about real vs. illusory improvements. You insist that you
prefer to spend your money on improvements that probably don't acutally
exist, that's your perogitive.


You don't even know what I spend my money on, or how much I spend.
You are making biased assumptions, as usual.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Mar 4 2006 11:20 am
Email: "ScottW"

I think ...if anyone here
even really cares about the facts...that you have been
shown to have little respect for them...and
your conclusions deserve scrutiny rather
than blind acceptance.

Kind of like your revisionist history, 'vast' military knowledge and
policy misinterpretations.

I'd consider calling you 'deluded' but 'toopid' is more appropriate.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
news
Swiney Mc****eater wrote: cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot]
net wrote in message
...



Look, Mikey -- a moth! Go for it! Here's the ketchup.

You really need to read more on the ABX site.

Tell us all about your vast experience with aBxism rituals. How many
have
you participated in? When did they occur? What equipment was "tested"?
Where
are the results published?

We're still waiting, McDumbAss.

Just like we're waitn for you to post about audio.


Irrelevant ranting noted.

Having participated in an ABX test has nothing whatsoever to do with
understanding them.
It has nothing to do with their efficacy. It has nothing to do with
their being recognized as valid by the rest of the world's audio
researchers.

I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't
want any new meds that weren't.


But you keep insisting that WE partake of them.


I have not insisted you partake of any drugs of any kind. Why whaddya
got?

As to audio ABX, I've simply said thathad you done any you would have
learned more about real vs. illusory improvements. You insist that you
prefer to spend your money on improvements that probably don't acutally
exist, that's your perogitive.


You don't even know what I spend my money on, or how much I spend.
You are making biased assumptions, as usual.


You have mentioned your gear in the past.
You have discussed your methodology for choosing equipment.
I just followed along from there.
Or is it now to be told that all that was just bull**** and you are a closet
objectivist?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: ScottW
Date: Sat, Mar 4 2006 11:20 am
Email: "ScottW"

I think ...if anyone here
even really cares about the facts...that you have been
shown to have little respect for them...and
your conclusions deserve scrutiny rather
than blind acceptance.

Kind of like your revisionist history, 'vast' military knowledge and
policy misinterpretations.

I'd consider calling you 'deluded' but 'toopid' is more appropriate.

Even his "toopidity" is part of shyster armamentarium. To pretend to
be
what the French call "falsely naive", just one of us simple honest
folk, while slyly smuggling in outrageous insinuations about the
hostile
witness is par for the course for the cheaper kind of rental
"authority"
about lying and truthfulness of the ScottW kind.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
nk.net...


As to audio ABX, I've simply said thathad you done any you would have
learned more about real vs. illusory improvements. You insist that you
prefer to spend your money on improvements that probably don't acutally
exist, that's your perogitive.


You don't even know what I spend my money on, or how much I spend.
You are making biased assumptions, as usual.


You have mentioned your gear in the past.
You have discussed your methodology for choosing equipment.
I just followed along from there.
Or is it now to be told that all that was just bull**** and you are a
closet objectivist?

Then you really are intellectually challenged.
I said I should use ABX.
You know that I own and use tube equipment.
You are claiming that I need to do ABX tests on my own
tube equipment vs cheaper available mass market ss equipment, to prove
that there are NO discernable sonic differences between
the cheaper mass market ss gear and my more expensive tube amps.
I really don't think that fits your agenda!!!




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access