wrote in message
ink.net

I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
and current capabilities.

I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass
test of the A500.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

So let's be realistic he Mike McKelvy and Steven
Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their
audio systems. However, as you have a claim to be the
originator
of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure
whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase
situation, it is to be expected that you have indeed
followed that
procedure when choosing what components to buy.

This is an unreasonable expectation for many reasons.

First off, I buy mostly speakers, earphones and microphones,
and ABX tests of speakers and earphones and microphones
always have positive outcomes. Therefore there's really no
logical reason to do ABX tests on speakers, earphones and
microphones.

Secondly, ABX tests were originally developed to resolve
controversies about whether certain kinds of components
really sound different from each other. Att his time there
are few such controversies in my mind, based on about 30
years of experience with AB testing.

Thirdly, I am generally unsucessful in borrowing equipment
that interests me, prior to testing it. In general just
about every component that I have been interested in
testing, I had to buy first and test second. Since cycling
audio components between my listening room and various
dealers is not my idea of fun, I generally only buy
components that I can reasonably expect to perform as I
desire in ABX tests. I'm pretty good at doing this, based on
the components that I bought and did subsequently ABX test.

Fourthly, Whether a piece of equipment would pass a highly
sensitive ABX test is not always the determining factor in
my equipment choices. ABX tests are so sensitive that a
piece of equipment could be reliably detectable in an ABX
test, and still be the best possible overall choice, based
on non-sonic considerations.

When, for example, you purchased a digital mixer for your
live sound mixing at
your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
your own advice above.

See (3) and (4) above.


Did you indeed do so? Did you do
so for the microphones you purchased?

See (1) and (4) above.

Did you do so for your amplifiers?

See (2) and (3) above.

For your speakers?

See (1) and (4) above.

If you didn't for even one of those purchases, then don't
you feel that odd, just as I find odd the fact that the
most vocal proponents for ABX testing have little or no
experience of it, even when their own money is tied up in
the decision?

Asked and answered.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
and current capabilities.

I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
A500.

But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)

said:

I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
and current capabilities.


I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
A500.


But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)


Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Now, let me ask, since you and your magazine claim to be
interested in how stuff really sounds, why do you adhere
to a demonstrably flawed method for determining that, and
why don't you adopt an accepted scientific method for
verifying your sighted perceptions?

Since John can be counted on to either slough or try to
double-talk his way out of this critical question...

It's all about power and control.

Stereophile's current listening test procedure is wide-open
to manipulation, whether conscious or unconscious.

Science is, by definition, out of anybody's control, least
of all Stereophile.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
said:

I'd love to see them set up an ABX test between the new
A500 Behringer amp against another amp of similar wattage
and current capabilities.


I say cut to the chase, and just do a straight-wire bypass test of the
A500.


But where would the embarassment factor come from? :-)


Is that something like reverse bragging rights? ;-)

Same coin, different side.

The idea of some looney like Fremer not being able to differentiate between
a $179.00 amp and one that sells for several times that amount and having
had a glowing review, would be priceless.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
please tell me how a consumer can make meaningful use of
your PCABX computer program in making a buying decision?

(1) Identify a sound quality issue relating to a buying
decision.

(2) Encapsulate that issue in a set of files for a PCABX
test.

(3) Distribute PCABX files to interested consumers for
their review, using a PCABX comparator running in their
PC.

(4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality
issue on the outcome of his personal PCABX listening
test.

(5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
quality issue into his buying decision.

In the case at hand:

(1) Consumer has a concern about the sound quality of the
Dolby decoder in one or more surround receivers.

(2) PCABX files based on operation of the Dolby
decoder(s) are prepared in the lab.

(3) Distribute PCABX files to consumers interested in
the surround receiver(s) for their review, using a PCABX
comparator running in their PC.

(4) Consumer bases his evaluation of the sound quality of
the Dolby Digital decoders in the various receiver(s) on
the outcome of his personal PCABX listening test.

(5) Consumer incorporates his evaluation of the sound
quality issue into his buying decision related to the
surround receiver(s).

Thank you for finally addressing the issue rather than
retreating into abusive langage, Mr. Krueger. I must
admit that while the procedure you outline above is
logically sound, it is also extraordinarily complex for
someone wanting to use to choose what components to buy.

The purchaser need only compete steps 4 and 5.

But then he would have nothing to compare in his "personal
PCABX listening test," Mr. Krueger.

I have to admit that I'm getting sick of being lied to, and
having lies told about what I wrote.

No-one is doing so Mr. Krueger. I am merely contesting your
assertions. You have said in the past that for me to do so
shows a lack of respect, but that is disingenuous of you.

So let's be realistic he Mike McKelvy and Steven
Sullivan have already admitted that they did not use PCABX
or even old-fashioned ABX to help them purchase their audio
systems. However, as you have a claim to be the originator
of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure whereby
you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase situation, it is
to be expected that you have indeed followed that procedure
when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound mixing at
your church, it is reasonable to assume that you followed
your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do so for
the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for your amplifiers?
For your speakers?

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
purchase decisions.

In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
reason.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Do you always make your decisions based only on the sound of a peice of
equipment?
Are there never any other factors that might influence your purchase?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
purchase decisions.

In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
reason.

IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.

Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.

Stephen

Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
that there is any way to remove that bias.
Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
of imagining that everything sounds the same.
All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS
amp.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
purchase decisions.

In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
reason.

IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests. Sure,
the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.

Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.

Stephen

Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
that there is any way to remove that bias.
Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
of imagining that everything sounds the same.
All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent SS
amp.
The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating
the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded
from this discussion.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote:

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward question.
It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a reply and
given that he deleted the question without asnwering it, his
answer would have been "no," ie, he has not used PCABX to make
purchase decisions.

In which case, it is very odd, surely, that the most vocal
proponents for ABX testing have never used such testing in the
only practically meaningful situation for consumer use? To
paraphrase something George Middius has said, their relentless
posting on ABX is more about supporting their faith than about
reason.

IIRC, Arny has made purchases for the purpose of performing tests.
Sure,
the other way round makes more sense given his advocacy.

Sullivan's position echoes one I used against Howard's seemingly
incessant exhortations to perform home blind tests: if you believe it
all sounds the same, one needn't test at all.

Stephen

Sure, if one believes it all sounds the same,
the test will not remove that bias. I'm not sure
that there is any way to remove that bias.
Poor souls are completely stuck in a life
of imagining that everything sounds the same.
All that self deception, and no way to cure it.
I am absolutely convinced that SET amps sound different than any decent
SS amp.
The usual qualifiers apply/ We don't need to keep repeating
the obvious and the given. Tube and SET are always excluded
from this discussion.
I don't believe everything sounds the same, I belive and there is evidence
to back me up, that equipmenmt that measures closely enough will sound the
same.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com


However, as you have a claim to be the
originator
of PCABX and as you have clearly outlined a procedure
whereby you feel PCABX can be of use in a purchase
situation, it is
to be expected that you have indeed followed that
procedure
when choosing what components to buy. When, for example,
you purchased a digital mixer for your live sound
mixing at
your church, it is reasonable to assume that you
followed
your own advice above. Did you indeed do so? Did you do
so for the microphones you purchased? Did you do so for
your amplifiers? For your speakers?

No answer from Mr. Krueger to what is a straightforward
question. It is reasonable to assume that in the absence
of a reply and given that he deleted the question without
asnwering it, his answer would have been "no," ie, he has
not used PCABX to make purchase decisions.

This would be a false claim.

John Atkinson wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
would the current Stereophile staff participated in?

I have participated in five blind tests organized by officers of
the AES and held at AES Conventions at meetings, of which three
used the ABX protocol. Regarding other blind tests, as you are
well aware because you heard me say so at the HE2005 debate, Mr.
Krueger, I have taken in a large number of blind tests, many
of which used the ABX protocol or box, sme hsich were ABC/HR, and
many of involved monadic testing with a hidden reference. In all,
I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
1977.

I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you
do?

More to the point, did you think that any differences you
did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were
bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream
hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy
space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews)
high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines?

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

Perhaps you didn't read the text of mine that you quoted above,
Mr. Sullivan. I wrote that of the five blind tests I took that were
organized by the AES, three used an ABX box. But as I also wrote
above, I have participated in over 100 of blind tests overall,
using all the common protocols, including ABX, ABC/HR, etc.

Just in case you missed my questions in another part of the
thread, regarding all of these listening sessions, just how
did you do?

More to the point, did you think that any differences you
did hear (assuming you heard any with components that were
bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream
hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy
space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews)
high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines?

Don't expect a long-winded debate, by the way, I have a life
to live, and it no longer includes debating true believers
at length on RAO.

Howard Ferstler

Brother Horace the Hideously Unethical Science-Trasher dorked:

I have participated in well over 100 such tests since my first in
1977.

I'll make this short, since I have a life to live. How'd you do?

At least(TM) Mr. Atkinson did not falsify his results, or lie about them, or
stop trying and simply take random guesses. Unlike you, Mr. Fraudster.

The larger picture here is that you, like the lesser 'borgs duh-Mikey and
Sillybot, are obsessed with "tests" because you are incapable of perceiving and
appreciating high-performance audio gear. We know all about what you like,
Clerkie -- bells and whistles for surround processing. You couldn't care less
about fidelity to the original sound. Your silence on the important (to Normals)
issues of tonality, timbre, and dynamics delineate your complacent adherence to
mediocrity. Like the maniacal Dr. Not, all you really care about is boosting
bass so much it drowns out mid- and high-frequency sounds.

Don't bother us with your nonsense about "tests", you simpering fool. You have
nothing to say about anything of interest to Normals. You're a closed-minded,
dogmatic old fart, and you're deaf and dumb to boot.

Beat it, Clerkie. You're dumber than the average clown and everybody here is
laughing at you.



..
..
..

wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
news
"surf" wrote in message
. ..
" wrote ...

"Robert Morein" wrote...

The subject matter is your beliefs regarding ABX.
At least from your side, you just keep pretending it's
invalid
and
that
it not one of the most widely used protcols for diference
testing.


Have you ever done an ABX test Mike?
No

"Nuf said.
Thanks for admitting that you are a stooge of Arny.


This from the guy who couldn't get the size of the Hubble
telescope
right,
and who no longer posts on RAHE becuase his ass was kicked so
badly.

Mikey, I have never posted on RAHE. Never.
Thanks for admitting you can't get the facts straight.
Or are you just lying, Mikey?


My mistake, you don't post on RAHE BECAUSE you are afraid of getting
your
ass kicked in a moderated forum.

It's rec.audio.tech where your ass WAS kicked.

And here of course when you admitted you didn't know squat about
damping
factor, or amplifers in general.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand I know all about the
definition
of
damping factor.

Yawn.

Thanks for admitting you have nothing to say.

I just get bored when you are so completely, utterly and consistently
wrong
about damn near everything, Robert. Your predictability is nothing short
of
stunning.

Here, we have a typical distortion.
What do you predict I'll say next?