| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or some other blind listening protocol? You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do something else. Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do. Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for audible difference. He does so explicitly, but it also follows from his endorsement of *double blind tests* generally (of which ABX is merely one species) both for subjective testing of audio difference and of audio-based preference, not only of speakers, but of audio gear generally. Naturally, I knew this, I was hoping one of the two idiots might cop to it. I've heard Mr. Olive speak on the subject along with Floyd Toole at an AES dinner. Harman has an interesting set up for doing tests on speaker pairs. The have several pair on a turntable device, one at each end of the stage. When they want to compare one pair to another, they can have them on the turntables and just turn them, and a new pair is set up in short order. I didn't think they'd abandon use of DBT and ABX simply becuase of the event that Ludo is so fond of posting. What he doesn't seem to get is that the reason there are so few positives, is because there is so little difference. http://www.aes.org/sections/la/PastM...004-08-31.html "Sean began by describing three types of listening tests: * Difference * Descriptive analysis * Preference / affective The difference test, obviously, is used for determining whether two audio devices under test are audibly different from each other. A common method is double-blind ABX testing. The descriptive analysis test is for gathering impressions of comparative audio quality from the listeners. If an ABX test reveals that device "A" sounds audibly different from device "B," the descriptive analysis test would determine in what way they sound different. The descriptive analysis test has limited usefulness in audio, though. And after the determinations of "whether different and how different," the preference or affective test asks the question, "Which one sounds better?" Each test has its own appropriate and inappropriate applications, as well as its own strengths and potential pitfalls. In any test, biases have to be controlled in order to obtain meaningful data. Most of his descriptions of testing methods involved tests of loudspeakers, but the principles can be put to use with other audio gear as well." In Olive's now-classic 2003 paper in JAES, he used a randomized, level-matched double-blind protocol to compare performance of trained to untrained listeners in 3- and 4-way speaker comparison tests (e.g., comparison of 3 or 4 different speakers per session), using four different types of musical selection. Presentation time was 10-30 sec for each lousdpeaker with each program. Switching interval was 3 sec, which Olive admits is not advisable for smaller differences, he and Floyd Toole found it not to be a limiiting factor for speaker comparisons....demonstrably less of one than controlling speaker *position*. Obviously Mr. Olive endorses ABX tests for pairwise difference, but obviously too, speakers, unlike audio components that aren't electromechanical transducers, are reasonably likely from physical and acoustical principles to *actually* sound different. This assumption is borne out by his double-blind 'preference' results which show statistical differences between the speakers tested -- something rather unlikely to happen in a DBT if the speakers didn't really sound different in the first place. Interestingly, two of the models that received a 'class A' rating from an audio magazine scored significantly differently , with one rated 'speaker of the year' scored the lowest among speakers compared by both trained and untrained listeners, in both three- and four-way comparisons, involving a total of 268 listeners. This loudspeaker -- an electrostatic hybrid -- rather satisfyingly also *measured* the worst in several key criteria. Obviously, too, ABX is unwieldy for comparing more than two sources and one variable per session. A matrix of ABX tests *could* have been done encompassing each pairwise combination of speakers in Olive's experiment, for each program type, for each listener group, at a *vastly* increased cost in time and effort with little likely increase in power. With the DBT protocol he *did* use, Olive was more quickly able to statistically assess effects of speaker difference, listener difference, and difference in program material. Dr. Mirabilis can, and likely will, harp on the fact that the Olive paper did not use *ABX* in this particular set of experiments. But this is not because Olive fundamentally disavows ABX tests. Quite the contrary. So, does Dr. Mirabilis believe that ABX -- a randomized, double-blind, level-matched protocol for comparing two sources, that often employs (but does not require) short presentations and short switching intervals -- is *so* different from the randomized, double-blind, level-matched, short presentation DBT protocol Olive used to compare more than two speakers, as to be worthy of special suspicion? Does he understand why ABX was not used *for this experiment*? Perhaps he should ask Sean Olive this question next time: if you were to run a listening test on two high-end components, simply to determine if they sound different, which test would you use? -- -S |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the truth reject it. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of them. Mikey, it's obvious. Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell. It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable. It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to show that you can hear the things you claim. Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic. He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars. He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are making a difference. Its practically unheard of as to application by consumers for making purchase decisions So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of to persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than the equipment. If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or other. Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ScottW" wrote in message news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. Yep. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear differences. Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased. In blind test methodology, each sample is labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc. The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component. The "X" can be any component in the test. However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly and pointless. You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right. However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption. It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it? He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase he knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just claims it to irritate people because they find him such a fool. YMMV |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide. That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread. Norm Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because I believe you mean well and listen to others. But....I think that like many others in this society you believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype. Speaking for myself, I don't thiink everyone is equally susceptible to hype, but when you have a tool to fight hype, use it. ABX kills the hype dead. The fact is also, that there are plenty of people who do beleive the hype and there is a concerted effort to keep them stupid. My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch. Flat, undistorted sound is all I want from my electronics, and hopefully, it will someday be as easy to do that with speakers as it is for electonics. My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats. My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me the price of (top grade) parts. I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid Monument. Want more? There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will never be quite the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a system different from mine. Which is fine with me. I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince them away from what they like. No you just want them to beleive that a valuable, universally recognized, relaible tool for finding real difference is a fraud. All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him and is not "scientific". Is it your view that believing and untruth that is foisted upon people for the purpose of making them pay higher prices is a good thing? If you wish to know the truth, you use the most relaible method you can for getting the facts. ABX is one of those methods. Using ABX can and has revealed differences when they were present at levels different enough to hear. In particular I object when they tell me that their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic research. I know something about that last and objective findings at the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure makes me feel better" If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as long as he does not bully me with it. Nobody is bullying you,, you don't have to use ABX or any othere blind protocol to buy stereo equipment, there really isn't that much need. When someone claims a difference where there shouldn't be one, those who really want to know, will use a blind comparison and live with the results. It is very notable that so many who claim to hear things that shouldn't be there, are so unwilling to partake in blind comparisons. Accept the fact that we know enough about what people hear, and how. That we can meausre things the ear can't even hear, and that it's possible to tell in advance of lsitening if 2 devices are going to sound different or not. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or some other blind listening protocol? You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do something else. Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do. The point is still that when you search for ABX, you find that it's discussed in the sense that it is one of only a couple ways of doing relaible comparisons, you certainly won't find any research people relying on sighted tests. Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals , thresholds whatever. This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?" The answer is still yes, even though this is not the original question you began with. Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones? Ludovic Mirabel Ask and you shall recieve: In this list, Mikey includes citations such as: "In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi on their ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated place-of-articulation continuum." Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! I knew it would be lost on you. Thanks for being so predictable. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... [snip] Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted become minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying to draw any further conclusions from this data. Norm Strong I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows: It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one. The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc. However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can we assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain. According to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget, many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means that ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed in the individual! The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem. It disables part of the mind as a function of the test. There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not subject to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination. You keep forgetting the sensitivity observed by sighted observers is not sensitivity at all, it's expectation. Maybe, if that's what you expect. Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation. An opinion you get to have. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the truth reject it. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of them. Mikey, it's obvious. Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell. It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable. It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to show that you can hear the things you claim. Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic. He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars. He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are making a difference. Its practically unheard of as to application by consumers for making purchase decisions I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do it often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable test. I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only needed to buy AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it was white.) Also available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal choice since Mr. Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his speakers. The result of the test was that no difference could be heard between mono and biwiring until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was a slight difference--in favor of mono wiring. My recollection is that he even more strongly supports bi-amping, and doing that with two identical stereo amps, each amp handling the total left or right side, one side of each amp upper freq and one side of each amp lower freq for that channel. BTW, I have Vandersteen 4's, I usually bi-amp them in a more normal fashion, one stereo amp left and right tweeters left and right other amp woofers left and right, ppostie Vandersteens recommendation. When I use single stereo amps, like I am right now, I don't bi-wire them, for other practical reasons. There appears to be little reason to do so. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or some other blind listening protocol? You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do something else. Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do. Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for audible difference. Obviously, ABX has certain applications. As Ludovic has documented, it minimizes and overlooks differences perceived by many, but not all, individuals. These differences are important to many audiophiles. Those of us who do care will not allow you to **** on our backs and call it rain. That said, ABX does have uses in research and industrial testing. Harmon International is an international conglomerate that produces a wide array of undistinguished, cost effective designs. The differences mentioned in this thread, between speakers, are of the types that could be distinguished by sighted testing. However, since Harmon markets products in the low to mid-fi category, they have a need for efficiently presenting their products to listeners of average ability, and swiftly obtaining results. Harmon is not in the business of making products that present music with grace and beauty; they are in the business of commodity electronics. Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. To point out that ABX is used by Harmon International to rapidly profile their products cannot be accepted as an endorsement by us. At the present time, I am unaware of any Harmon products that I would enjoy listening to. I have always despised their amplifiers. But, hey, perhaps they sound fine to you. ABX is used as an industrial tool, as a market sampling tool, and as a research tool for subjects like, as cited by the mckelviphibian, "In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi ontheir ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated place-of-articulation continuum." We have no argument with that. Just don't **** on our backs and call it rain. If you can't hear, you can't hear. That's your problem -- not ours. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote in message oups.com... So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or some other blind listening protocol? You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do something else. Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do. Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for audible difference. Obviously, ABX has certain applications. As Ludovic has documented, it minimizes and overlooks differences perceived by many, but not all, individuals. These differences are important to many audiophiles. Those of us who do care will not allow you to **** on our backs and call it rain. That said, ABX does have uses in research and industrial testing. Harmon International is an international conglomerate that produces a wide array of undistinguished, cost effective designs. The differences mentioned in this thread, between speakers, are of the types that could be distinguished by sighted testing. However, since Harmon markets products in the low to mid-fi category, they have a need for efficiently presenting their products to listeners of average ability, and swiftly obtaining results. Harmon is not in the business of making products that present music with grace and beauty; they are in the business of commodity electronics. Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. To point out that ABX is used by Harmon International to rapidly profile their products cannot be accepted as an endorsement by us. At the present time, I am unaware of any Harmon products that I would enjoy listening to. I have always despised their amplifiers. But, hey, perhaps they sound fine to you. ABX is used as an industrial tool, as a market sampling tool, and as a research tool for subjects like, as cited by the mckelviphibian, "In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi ontheir ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated place-of-articulation continuum." We have no argument with that. Just don't **** on our backs and call it rain. If you can't hear, you can't hear. My hearing is pretty normal for may age. Even if you had perfect hearing from 0-30,000Hz, it wouldn't change the fact that you can not rely on sighted listening for subtle difference. That's your problem -- not ours. The problem is some folks hear things that aren't really there. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Oct 2005 23:37:32 -0700, wrote:
Ludovic Mirabel I love your name. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote: Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the truth reject it. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of them. Mikey, it's obvious. Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell. It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable. It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to show that you can hear the things you claim. Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic. He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars. He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are making a difference. Its practically unheard of as to application by consumers for making purchase decisions So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of to persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than the equipment. Bull****. This is an opinion group. If I want to talk about differences I hear, I will do it without reference to DBT, and I or anyone else is certainly justified in doing so. We do not have to have done any DBT's to talk about any of our preferences or any differences in regard to what we hear. What you are doing here, Mr. NETAUDIO NAZI, is ordereing us to prequalify any discussion about our preferences with haviing undergone DBT's, which is just outright ridiculous. If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or other. Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous. It is bad science, because it only removes the bias towards one side of the equation. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... Do you think the BBC got bad results when that had people come and evaluate speakers for them using ABX? That's the reason they chose Dynaudio speakers exclusively after realizing how bad their own designs were. lordy!!! If they were that bad, it would have been obvious without ABX! |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation. An opinion you get to have. And you will keep having your opinion of sameness, DBT or no DBT. Your bias has not been removed |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "ScottW" wrote in message news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. Yep. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear differences. Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased. In blind test methodology, each sample is labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc. The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component. The "X" can be any component in the test. However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly and pointless. You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right. However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption. It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it? He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase he knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just claims it to irritate people because they find him such a fool. YMMV No, Mikey, you don't get it. Those of us who hear acutely, see the colors you cannot see. When it rains, we put on raincoats. We don't check the U.S. Weather Bureau to get the official opinion. You **** on our backs and call it rain. We can tell the difference. But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow snow. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. I think that, with the rarest of exceptions, beliefs are an expression of prejudice, in the literal sense, which means to prejudge without facts. Prejudice is an expression of the personality. A person's personality is the sum of how he interacts, not just with other people, but with all the other things in the Universe. Every human tries to systematize his sensorium. We impose order on the world because we desperately want to understand it. But the desire for order is not the same as the ability to figure out what it is. Until the Renaissance, successes in understanding were rare. Superstition is fully synthetic order, used by desperate minds to fill the need. Then came meta-systems; systems to systematize thought, so as to avoid superstition. The idea was to eliminate prejudice from the process. But any system can be corrupted. We read in this forum contemptuous replies, in response to attempts to keep prejudice away from science. In fact, these replies are usually in the form of base prejudice. Science is not a completely mechanical process. It is limited by the quality of mind that applies it. The universe of hypothesis is only as large as the mind can accomodate. Lesser minds work within a smaller omega, which may not contain the correct one. If Mikey were to attempt to understand some of the new work in modern physics, he would have to dimensionally collapse it, because Mikey lives in Flatland. The same may be true for Mr. Sullivan. Much has been made of the apparent fact that the limitations of the human hearing apparatus are well understood, and that the range of performance is incapable of explaining the "golden ears" hypothesis. The blunt minds of the ABXers, living in Flatland, take this as proof that golden ears do not exist. But that's not what it's about. One man can look at a Dutch Masters and copy it with exquisite precision. Most people with good vision cannot do this. It's about the brain, and what the brain remembers. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide. That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread. Norm Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because I believe you mean well and listen to others. But....I think that like many others in this society you believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype. Speaking for myself, I don't thiink everyone is equally susceptible to hype, but when you have a tool to fight hype, use it. ABX kills the hype dead. The fact is also, that there are plenty of people who do beleive the hype and there is a concerted effort to keep them stupid. My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch. Flat, undistorted sound is all I want from my electronics, and hopefully, it will someday be as easy to do that with speakers as it is for electonics. My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats. My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me the price of (top grade) parts. I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid Monument. Want more? There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will never be quite the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a system different from mine. Which is fine with me. I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince them away from what they like. No you just want them to beleive that a valuable, universally recognized, relaible tool for finding real difference is a fraud. All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him and is not "scientific". Is it your view that believing and untruth that is foisted upon people for the purpose of making them pay higher prices is a good thing? If you wish to know the truth, you use the most relaible method you can for getting the facts. ABX is one of those methods. Using ABX can and has revealed differences when they were present at levels different enough to hear. In particular I object when they tell me that their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic research. I know something about that last and objective findings at the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure makes me feel better" If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as long as he does not bully me with it. Nobody is bullying you,, you don't have to use ABX or any othere blind protocol to buy stereo equipment, there really isn't that much need. You are bullying us, Mikey, by using ABX as a club to invalidate Ludovic's experiences, as well as those of many others. You're a ****er. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... [snip] Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted become minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying to draw any further conclusions from this data. Norm Strong I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows: It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one. The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc. However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can we assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain. According to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget, many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means that ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed in the individual! The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem. It disables part of the mind as a function of the test. There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not subject to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination. You keep forgetting the sensitivity observed by sighted observers is not sensitivity at all, it's expectation. Maybe, if that's what you expect. Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation. An opinion you get to have, from being deaf and dumb. Totally. |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. It's all bull****. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for "rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence." This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". More nonsense. Morein is just exhibiting his own snobbery. Amplifiers of good repute are amplifiers that don't have audible distortion and can drive the speakers connected to them. These have been abailable for a very long time. The emotional connection he talks about ahs nothing to do with the equipment, and everything to do with emotion, which changes from moment to moment. I didin't get into and stay involved with audio for the puirpose of having nice backround music. I didi it because I enjoy music that is played with passion and recorded by people who care about wha they are doing. From Brnadeburg Concertos to Beatles to MJQ, to Big Band Jazz, it has always been about the music and my passion for it. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Becuase it's more moronic bull**** from a snobby twit who hasn't got a clue. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Speaking of moronic twits who haven't got a clue. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news 
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. It's all bull****. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for "rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence." Mikey, your mind is too small to absorb the wisdom of the Krell. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Speaking of moronic twits who haven't got a clue. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? Mikey, you presuppose I agree with several attitudes expressed in the above statement. I do not. Suffice it to say, you are person with a weak mind and a low IQ. You are a "special" person, Mikey; mentally disadvantaged. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message news "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: [snip] If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Becuase it's more moronic bull**** from a snobby twit who hasn't got a clue. Mikey, it would be difficult to consider you as an equal. Your mental inferiority is very obvious. You have little capacity for independent expression. Paul is a very good fellow to treat you with compassion. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Bug Eater is feeling neglected. Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? I'll bet I know why you're so whiny. It's because Arnii Krooborg deserted you, right? |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. I think that, with the rarest of exceptions, beliefs are an expression of prejudice, At least you are consisitently wrong. Beliefs are the way people think oabout things based on what they've been taught or learned on their own. Insofar as thir beleifs are correct, that is they jibe with reality, they are good beliefs, when they don't it because people haven't done the proper amount of laerning to check that beliefs are right. Prejudice is not neccessarily a bad thing, biggotry is. in the literal sense, which means to prejudge without facts. Something you seem to be making a career out of here. Prejudice is an expression of the personality. A person's personality is the sum of how he interacts, not just with other people, but with all the other things in the Universe. Every human tries to systematize his sensorium. We impose order on the world because we desperately want to understand it. We don't impose order on the world, we try to get ourselves to not go against the order of the world. At least the smart ones do. But the desire for order is not the same as the ability to figure out what it is. Until the Renaissance, successes in understanding were rare. Superstition is fully synthetic order, used by desperate minds to fill the need. It's a lazy way to try and understand the things for which the answers are or were not easily obtainable. Then came meta-systems; systems to systematize thought, so as to avoid superstition. Thanks to Aristiotle. The idea was to eliminate prejudice from the process. Funny I thought the idea was to understand the truth of what is, so that we could work within the bounds of reality. But any system can be corrupted. We read in this forum contemptuous replies, in response to attempts to keep prejudice away from science. In fact, these replies are usually in the form of base prejudice. They are usually from you. Science is not a completely mechanical process. It is limited by the quality of mind that applies it. The universe of hypothesis is only as large as the mind can accomodate. Lesser minds work within a smaller omega, which may not contain the correct one. If Mikey were to attempt to understand some of the new work in modern physics, he would have to dimensionally collapse it, because Mikey lives in Flatland. The same may be true for Mr. Sullivan. We live in the world of what is real, while you live in a world that worships your whims. Much has been made of the apparent fact that the limitations of the human hearing apparatus are well understood, and that the range of performance is incapable of explaining the "golden ears" hypothesis. That sighted listening is crap and tells yo nothing about what is real about an audio system. There are no golden ears only trained ones and they can be fooled by expectations. The blunt minds of the ABXers, living in Flatland, take this as proof that golden ears do not exist. It's not a predjudice, it's a matter of the fact that they all seem to find it impossible to hear things they claim to be able to when they can't see what is playing. But that's not what it's about. One man can look at a Dutch Masters and copy it with exquisite precision. Most people with good vision cannot do this. It's about the brain, and what the brain remembers. It doesn't remember music or sound all that well, and if you bothered to study the subject you'd know this. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "ScottW" wrote in message news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. Yep. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear differences. Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased. In blind test methodology, each sample is labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc. The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component. The "X" can be any component in the test. However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly and pointless. You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right. However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption. It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it? He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase he knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just claims it to irritate people because they find him such a fool. YMMV No, Mikey, you don't get it. Those of us who hear acutely, see the colors you cannot see. When it rains, we put on raincoats. We don't check the U.S. Weather Bureau to get the official opinion. You **** on our backs and call it rain. We can tell the difference. We **** on you because you are a **** ant and you think you know more than you do. Your hearing acuity is mostly a figment of your imagination. We could test it though, but you don't want your fantasy world to cumble around you, so you blame the messenger, ABX. But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow snow. Not been a problem for me, sorry you had to find out the hard way. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message ... [snip] I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that ABX diminshes that. Yep. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences. Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear differences. Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased. Having owned a comparator myself, I do have some perspective on that subject. Anyway, I didn't say the golden-ears crowd could never hear differences, just that it's not always possible, despite what many in that crowd seem to believe. Audio for many of those folks is just a hobby, they can believe whatever they like, and I'm fine with that. (snip) Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly and pointless. You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right. I'd certainly be open to representing audio gear with nudes, and not necessarily the Picasso nudes you suggested. The right nudes might make everything better, not just the sound of audio gear. Heck, given the right nudes, I'd be willing to forget the audio gear entirely! ;-) However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption. I just don't see the point of replacing the intentionally bland and abstract A, B, C, X, etc. labels with labels (such as the Picasso nudes you mentioned, although I realize that was probably a fanciful example) with labels that are meaningful in other contexts. Having more meaningful labels would just confuse things and make it easier for people to assign irrelevant meanings to the things being labeled. |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Middius" wrote in message ... The Bug Eater is feeling neglected. Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? I'll bet I know why you're so whiny. It's because Arnii Krooborg deserted you, right? When the going gets tough, the tough get going  |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... paul packer said: To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools". Robert is right and so are you. If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Speaking of moronic twits who haven't got a clue. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? Mikey, you presuppose I agree with several attitudes expressed in the above statement. I do not. Suffice it to say, you are person with a weak mind and a low IQ. You are a "special" person, Mikey; mentally disadvantaged. Then why are you so determined to keep talking to me? Are you that desperate for conversation? |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "George Middius" wrote in message ... The Bug Eater is feeling neglected. Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them, what one person can't hear, none of us can hear. Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander everybody who knows more about audio than you do? I'll bet I know why you're so whiny. It's because Arnii Krooborg deserted you, right? When the going gets tough, the tough get going Thanks for admitting you're not tough. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. It's all bull****. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for "rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence." Mikey, your mind is too small to absorb the wisdom of the Krell. Acttually, it's my wallet that's not fat enough to pay for one, especially since I can get identical sound from much lower priced gear. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: [snip] If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all objections--but of course it won't. Why is that? Becuase it's more moronic bull**** from a snobby twit who hasn't got a clue. Mikey, it would be difficult to consider you as an equal. Certainly not, you're an idiot. Your mental inferiority is very obvious. Yet you seem drawn like a moth to a flame. You have little capacity for independent expression. Paul is a very good fellow to treat you with compassion. You are a very bad person to wage a war of slander over the fact that you've been coaught so many times making so many mistakes. What was your family motto? Wah? |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation. An opinion you get to have. And you will keep having your opinion of sameness, DBT or no DBT. Your bias has not been removed It's not a matter of expectation any more, it's simply a matter of performance. Things that perform similarly enough, sound indistinguishable from each other. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the truth reject it. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of them. Mikey, it's obvious. Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell. It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable. It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to show that you can hear the things you claim. Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic. He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars. He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are making a difference. Its practically unheard of as to application by consumers for making purchase decisions So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of to persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than the equipment. Bull****. This is an opinion group. If I want to talk about differences I hear, I will do it without reference to DBT, and I or anyone else is certainly justified in doing so. We do not have to have done any DBT's to talk about any of our preferences or any differences in regard to what we hear. What you are doing here, Mr. NETAUDIO NAZI, is ordereing us to prequalify any discussion about our preferences with haviing undergone DBT's, which is just outright ridiculous. If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or other. Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous. It is bad science, because it only removes the bias towards one side of the equation. I'm sure that if you tell that to all the people doing audio research who use ABX, they'll stop immediately. Of course that would only be true if your assumption were correct. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide. That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread. Norm Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because I believe you mean well and listen to others. But....I think that like many others in this society you believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype. Speaking for myself, I don't thiink everyone is equally susceptible to hype, but when you have a tool to fight hype, use it. ABX kills the hype dead. The fact is also, that there are plenty of people who do beleive the hype and there is a concerted effort to keep them stupid. My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch. Flat, undistorted sound is all I want from my electronics, and hopefully, it will someday be as easy to do that with speakers as it is for electonics. My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats. My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me the price of (top grade) parts. I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid Monument. Want more? There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will never be quite the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a system different from mine. Which is fine with me. I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince them away from what they like. No you just want them to beleive that a valuable, universally recognized, relaible tool for finding real difference is a fraud. All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him and is not "scientific". Is it your view that believing and untruth that is foisted upon people for the purpose of making them pay higher prices is a good thing? If you wish to know the truth, you use the most relaible method you can for getting the facts. ABX is one of those methods. Using ABX can and has revealed differences when they were present at levels different enough to hear. In particular I object when they tell me that their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic research. I know something about that last and objective findings at the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure makes me feel better" If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as long as he does not bully me with it. Nobody is bullying you,, you don't have to use ABX or any othere blind protocol to buy stereo equipment, there really isn't that much need. You are bullying us, Mikey, by using ABX as a club to invalidate Ludovic's experiences, as well as those of many others. You're a ****er. Ludovic needs to learn the same thing you do, that just because you perceived something in a sighted comparison, doesn't mean it was real. I beleive he percieved it but it doesn't matter since there was no bias control. That's not invalidating his experience, that's just a matter of fact. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message news
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein" wrote: Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute, I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or have you had similar experiences? To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence. If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. Pretty much says it all. It's all bull****. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for "rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence." Mikey, your mind is too small to absorb the wisdom of the Krell. Acttually, it's my wallet that's not fat enough to pay for one, especially since I can get identical sound from much lower priced gear. That's your 'bias' talking. You haven't done a thing to neutralize it. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation. An opinion you get to have. And you will keep having your opinion of sameness, DBT or no DBT. Your bias has not been removed It's not a matter of expectation any more, it's simply a matter of performance. Things that perform similarly enough, sound indistinguishable from each other. You don't know that. tell us exactly what amp DBT's you particiapted in, the number of trials for each, and your results, and tell us how that applies to the Krell vs your favorite mass market amp. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... From RAHE: wrote in message ... We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled listening alone testing. What is the alternative? We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the truth reject it. We note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and possess low quality ears and brains. How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of them. Mikey, it's obvious. Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell. It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable. It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to show that you can hear the things you claim. Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic. He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars. He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are making a difference. Its practically unheard of as to application by consumers for making purchase decisions So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of to persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than the equipment. Bull****. This is an opinion group. If I want to talk about differences I hear, I will do it without reference to DBT, and I or anyone else is certainly justified in doing so. We do not have to have done any DBT's to talk about any of our preferences or any differences in regard to what we hear. What you are doing here, Mr. NETAUDIO NAZI, is ordereing us to prequalify any discussion about our preferences with haviing undergone DBT's, which is just outright ridiculous. If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or other. Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous. It is bad science, because it only removes the bias towards one side of the equation. I'm sure that if you tell that to all the people doing audio research who use ABX, they'll stop immediately. Of course that would only be true if your assumption were correct. They are marketing their **** towards people who can't hear differences and/or people who are preconceived to believe that there are no differences, so thay are eternally happy doing tests that confirm and conform to the biases of their intended audiences. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Summing or not summing | Pro Audio | |||
| Summing Box | Pro Audio | |||
| RMS216 Folcrom Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box | Pro Audio | |||
| for the analog summing crowd - what are you using to AD your stereo mix? | Pro Audio | |||
| audiophile summing mixers...who's getting in the game? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
