On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:25:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Those are just the two most likely examples of
contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.

More blather from the King of the Confederacy of Dunces.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
ps.com
it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
anything else with digital I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
are directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that codecs and ADCs
have nothing to do with selection of components for a domestic playback
system?

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and simple.

(2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal processing which
requires there be ADCs to convert analog inputs to digital.

Those are just the two most likely examples of contradictions of your
poorly-informed claim, John.


Perhaps he doesn't really use any modern equipment.
I wonder if he has one of those tube CD players I once read about. I
laughed so hard at that one it hurt.

wrote in message
k.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
ps.com
it's absurd to suggest that PCABX is any substitute
for experiencing the real thing.

How many times do I have to correct Atkinson on this
topic. No matter how Atkinson postures, there *are*
many cases where PCABX *is* the real thing. Classic
examples - testing perceptual encoders and just about
anything else with digital I/O.

Please put your troll back in your box, Mr. Krueger. I
have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that
PCABX is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs,
A/D converters, etc, where their effects on sound
quality are directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say
that codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection
of components for a domestic playback system?

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
simple. (2) Many modern surround receivers have
DSP-based
signal processing which requires there be ADCs to
convert analog inputs to digital. Those are just the two
most likely examples of
contradictions of your poorly-informed claim, John.

Perhaps he doesn't really use any modern equipment.

I doubt that. But he doesn't seem to have a good grasp on
what's under the covers of some common modern gear. There's
a codec or two inside every surround processor and receiver.
Ooops, not really meat for Stereophile.

I wonder if he has one of those tube CD players I once
read about.

Last I heard, Art does.

I laughed so hard at that one it hurt.

Art complaining about dunces is real solid irony. And, he's
the best supporter Middius ever had!

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
perform
or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

On the basis of actual performance.

Evasive answer noted.

Think about it. It might come to you.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:58:16 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
perform
or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

On the basis of actual performance.

Evasive answer noted.

Think about it. It might come to you.

By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you? And if so, and if
as you say you chose on the basis of each component's actual
performance, is it possible that you noticed along the way that one
amplifier often sounds different from another? Or did you only notice
that about speakers? Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
selection process.

"paul packer" wrote in message


By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you?

What else might it mean?

And
if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
component's actual performance, is it possible that you
noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
different from another?

That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that one
amplifier often sounds
different from another is a true and genuine experince.

As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just punching
their membership card in the dumb guys union.

If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul, you
have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier often
sound different from another?"

The list of answers turns out to start with the following:

(1) The amps sound different because they aren't
level-matched when auditioned.
(2) The amps sound different because the music isn't
time-synched during the audition.
(3) The amps sound different because the listener's didn't
have their biases under nearly as good of control during the
audition as they thought.

Do these seem like bold assertions? Why not test them?

Why not do an amplifier comparison that addresses these
three issues fully. IOW do a test that nails these issues
stone cold.

Been there, done that many times.

The results are that if you address just these three
relatively simple issues, all of a sudden you notice that
good amplifiers no longer sound different from another.

Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
selection process.

No Paul you don't want to understand the selection process.
I say that with considerable confidence because when
presented with correct answers on a silver platter, you
figuratively spit on them every time. In short, you
illustrate Christ's parable about not casting pearls before
swine.

Is it arrogance that makes you act that way, Paul? Is it
lack of proper educational background? Is it lack of basic
native intelligence? Is it something else?

You tell me!

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:20:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you?

What else might it mean?

From the Objectivist brigade, almost anything.

And
if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
component's actual performance, is it possible that you
noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
different from another?

That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that one
amplifier often sounds
different from another is a true and genuine experince.

As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just punching
their membership card in the dumb guys union.

If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul,

Gratuitous, Arnie. No one's pretending anything. Unless of course you
are.

you have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier often
sound different from another?"

The list of answers turns out to start with the following:

(1) The amps sound different because they aren't
level-matched when auditioned.

Level matched? When I audition I do so at the same level, the level
I've been listening at since 1965, the level which is comfortable for
me. Any other level is not relevant. I think if I say that level
matching by instrument will not always produce the same perceived
loudness, you'll know what I mean. But what I really mean is, the
level I set at the start of each listening session, instinctively, is
the best possible level matching, because it is a 'real-world'
condition. And remember we're talking 'perception' here, not absolute
fact. The amps have already been determined as measuring the same.

(2) The amps sound different because the music isn't
time-synched during the audition.

That's A/B audition, I presume. Not what I'm talking about.

(3) The amps sound different because the listener's didn't
have their biases under nearly as good of control during the
audition as they thought.

Oh piffle! Sorry, but no other word describes that statement.

Do these seem like bold assertions?

No, they just seem nonsensical.

Why not test them?

Because I've got better things to do, like listening to music.

Why not do an amplifier comparison that addresses these
three issues fully. IOW do a test that nails these issues
stone cold.

Been there, done that many times.

The results are that if you address just these three
relatively simple issues, all of a sudden you notice that
good amplifiers no longer sound different from another.

What do you mean by good amplifiers? Ones that all measure zero
distortion or as good as?

Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
selection process.

No Paul you don't want to understand the selection process.

Well, I did, but I have to say what you've presented seems to me so
silly I simply can't take it seriously.

I say that with considerable confidence because when
presented with correct answers on a silver platter, you
figuratively spit on them every time. In short, you
illustrate Christ's parable about not casting pearls before
swine.

Yep. These pearls I have to stamp all over.

Is it arrogance that makes you act that way, Paul? Is it
lack of proper educational background? Is it lack of basic
native intelligence? Is it something else?

Answers on the back of an old warranty card addressed to Arnold
Krueger esquire.

"paul packer" wrote in message


And
if so, and if as you say you chose on the basis of each
component's actual performance, is it possible that you
noticed along the way that one amplifier often sounds
different from another?

That gets back to the core of the debate. Noticing that
one amplifier often sounds
different from another is a true and genuine experince.

As a rule, in actual use, all amplifiers sound different.
Anybody who makes a big point of this fact is just
punching their membership card in the dumb guys union.

If you want to pretend to be even a little smart Paul,
you have to ask the question: "Why does one amplifier
often sound different from another?"

The list of answers turns out to start with the
following:

(1) The amps sound different because they aren't
level-matched when auditioned.

Level matched? When I audition I do so at the same level,
the level I've been listening at since 1965, the level
which is comfortable for me.

So Paul you're saying that the volume control on your system
is locked down and has only one setting, and furthermore, if
you bring any other component in to audition, you match the
level of the system with the new component in it to be
within 0.1 dB of what it was before?

Any other level is not
relevant. I think if I say that level matching by
instrument will not always produce the same perceived
loudness, you'll know what I mean.

Well Paul, I'll know that you don't get what I mean by level
matching.

But, I knew that all along.

But what I really mean
is, the level I set at the start of each listening
session, instinctively, is the best possible level
matching, because it is a 'real-world' condition.

Like I said Paul, in the real world, all amps almost always
sound different. The same amp compared to itself even sounds
different in the real world, because subjective level
matching isn't that reliable.

And remember we're talking 'perception' here, not
absolute
fact. The amps have already been determined as measuring
the same.

Then Paul I know for sure you don't *get it* because no two
amps measure the same, not even the left and right channels
of the same amp.

That's A/B audition, I presume. Not what I'm talking
about.

Right Paul, when I talk about comparing amps I know what I'm
talking about. You don't know what you're talking about so
what I'm talking about is not, by definition the same thing
you're talking about.

(3) The amps sound different because the listener's
didn't have their biases under nearly as good of control
during the audition as they thought.

Oh piffle! Sorry, but no other word describes that
statement.

See former comments about Paul not knowing what he's talking
about.

Do these seem like bold assertions?

No, they just seem nonsensical.

Good Paul, because that end's the possibility of any further
discussions between us, and I will get on with the rest of
my life.

But Paul when I get sentimental and want to think of a
really dumb, conceited guy who has an unparalleled
dedication to cluelessness, I'll either think of you,
Middius or Sackman.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
I have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that PCABX
is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs, A/D
converters, etc, where their effects on sound quality
are directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
components for a domestic playback system?

That is correct, Mr. Krueger. Codecs and ADCs have no relevance
to do with the _selection_ of components for a domestic
playback system, even though, as you correctly point out
below, many components incorporate those specific technologies.

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
simple.

Of course. I haven't said otherwise. But using PCABX to test
the efficacy of the encoding section of a codec such as DD
is of zero relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer to
choose a DVD player or receiver.

(2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
inputs to digital.

Of course. But there is no obvious way how a blind test using
PCABX can be helpful to someone in a store choosing a receiver
or DVD player.

Those are just the two most likely examples of
contradictions of your poorly-informed claim.

You really don't seem capable of comprehending what others
write, Mr. Krueger. I clearly wrote that "codecs, A/D
converters etc, have no relevance to what was being discussed,
which was the selection of components for a domestic playback
system."

Your argument seems to be that because codecs and ADCs are indeed
of relevance to the _components_, that automatically means that
PCABX testing of those technologies is relevant to the
_selection_ of those components in a store. Remember, contrary to
Steven Sullivan's claim that this is a strawman argument, you have
frequently argued on the newsgroups that ABX testing and PCABX
_are_ of use to consumers in choosing products for their systems. I
am just pointing out that PCABX testing, which is all Mr. McKelvy
admitted having any experience of, is of no relevance in that
situation.

You appear to disagree. So please tell me how a consumer can
make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in making a
buying decision?

While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson said to the Krooborg:

You appear to disagree. So please tell me how a consumer can
make meaningful use of your PCABX computer program in making a
buying decision?

A reasonable question to ask, since Arnii's ****ware can only be used to
compare recorded snippets of sound that exist only in the digital domain.

However, as we all know from dealing with Arnii "Krazyborg" Krooger for many
years, reality is irrelevant to the Beast's "debating trade" posturing. The
truth is that Turdy hopes his ****ware site will spread his loathsome
Kroopaganda to unsuspecting victims. His intent is to lure sympathetic nerds
to the site and then assimilate them into the Hive with the mind-numbing
rituals of clicking castanets and other dorky substitutes for human music. The
fact that nobody has ever succumbed to this crude brainwashing regimen doesn't
deter Mr. ****. After all, the Krooborg believes his antics on Usenet
constitute a "business". Not to mention his persistent delusion that he is
single-handedly wreaking havoc on the E.H.E.E. by repeating faux-clever lines
such as "tube bigot" and "vinyl uber alles".

As an aside, I would like to add my voice to the chorus applauding Ludo's
direct comparison of medical DBTs and the version used for audio equipment.
The medical ones are based on real science, whereas the dumbed-down knockoff
in audio is just an exercise in voluntary roboticism. Thanks for pointing out
the crucial differences, Ludovic.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson"
wrote in message
oups.com
I have said on many occasions on the newsgroups that
PCABX is a perfectly valid means of testing codecs,
A/D converters, etc, where their effects on sound
quality
are directly preserved as computer data files.

But in your %$# posturing, you didn't say it this time,
John.

Because as I wrote in the portion of my posting that you
snipped, Mr. Krueger, codecs, A/D converters etc, have
no relevance to what was being discussed, which was the
selection of components for a domestic playback system.

Do you read what you write, John? Did you really say that
codecs and ADCs have nothing to do with selection of
components for a domestic playback system?

That is correct, Mr. Krueger. Codecs and ADCs have no
relevance
to do with the _selection_ of components for a domestic
playback system, even though, as you correctly point out
below, many components incorporate those specific
technologies.

(1) Dolby Digital is based on the AC-3 codec, pure and
simple.

Of course. I haven't said otherwise. But using PCABX to
test
the efficacy of the encoding section of a codec such as DD
is of zero relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer
to
choose a DVD player or receiver.

Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number one.
DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their codecs.
Whether these decoding sections vary sonically does not seem
to have been investigated very thoroughly.

(2) Many modern surround receivers have DSP-based signal
processing which requires there be ADCs to convert analog
inputs to digital.

Of course. But there is no obvious way how a blind test
using PCABX can be helpful to someone in a store choosing
a receiver or DVD player.

That would be nonsense statement number two. Just because
the means for setting up a test like that is not obvious to
you John, doesn't mean that it would be that tough for
someone else to do it.


I clearly wrote that "codecs, A/D
converters etc, have no relevance to what was being
discussed, which was the selection of components for a
domestic playback system."

And both of your responses were total nonsense, for very
good reasons.

Your argument seems to be that because codecs and ADCs
are indeed of relevance to the _components_, that
automatically means that PCABX testing of those
technologies is relevant to the _selection_ of those
components in a store.

Gratuitous addition of the clause "in a store" noted. By now
Atkinson you should know that one of the strengths of PCABX
is that with it, auditions need not be done in a store. The
decode section of a Codec is in fact a perfect candidate for
PCABX testing - the codec has digital going in and digital
coming out.

Remember, contrary to Steven
Sullivan's claim that this is a strawman argument, you
have frequently argued on the newsgroups that ABX testing
and PCABX _are_ of use to consumers in choosing products
for their systems.

Whether an issue is a strawman argument or not is often
dependent on the context. Just because So this issue is a
strawman argument in one context is not binding on all other
context. This becomes Atkinson nonsense statement number
three for just this one post.

I am just pointing out that PCABX
testing, which is all Mr. McKelvy admitted having any
experience of, is of no relevance in that situation.

Based on what are now three nonsense statements.

You appear to disagree. So 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).



While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd
that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the
newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of
true ABX testing and have not used it in the only
circumstance where it might be of practical help to them.

Everybody knows that setting up ABX tests requires skills
and equipment that aren't readily available to everybody.
If it wasn't for AES demos and the like, how many ABX tests
would the current Stereophile staff participated in? ( Note,
an AES demo should not be confused with participating in a
*real* ABX test.)

George Minus Middius wrote :

John Atkinson said to the Krooborg:

Why are you such asslicker, eh George ?

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:58:16 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:32:38 GMT, wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:16 GMT, wrote:


I chose my audio system based on what I knew about the components
actual
performance. I didn't use any faith at all. I knew how it would
perform
or
I wouldn't have bothered with any of it.

This is ambiguous. Doers this mean you listened at length in the shop
to each component individually, various components together, all the
components together, or does it mean you didn't listen at all but
chose on the basis of specs?

On the basis of actual performance.

Evasive answer noted.

Think about it. It might come to you.

By performance you don't mean sound quality, do you? And if so, and if
as you say you chose on the basis of each component's actual
performance, is it possible that you noticed along the way that one
amplifier often sounds different from another?

Where have I ever denied that? The next question becomes, why do they sound
different?

Is it because they ahve differences in performance or could it be other
factors such as spl not matched?

Or did you only notice
that about speakers? Trust me, I'd really like to understand the
selection process.

My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are audio
technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a unit
under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.

In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my own
that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
small that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products I
had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
misuse or abuse.

QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to, play
cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a home
hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
things.

The world of pro audio and so called pro-sumer audio is an area that IMO are
overlooked and should be investigated by anyone who wants some serious power
for very reasonable prices, particularly if you have difficult loads to
drive or if you have horn speakers.

The list is long and should be examined.

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. Hence my feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared
with, say, Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by
actual experience.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:

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

Note that the following comments relate only to John
Atkinson

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.



Thus it seems safe to conclude that the situation is as
follows:

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

"None, other than JoHn Atkinson."

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:19:48 GMT, wrote:


My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are audio
technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a unit
under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.

Again "performance" is ambiguous. I assume you mean how they measure.
So your criteria are measurement and reliability, though the latter
can only be guessed at.

In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my own

And what research would this be?

that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
small

I presume you mean sound quality differences. I'm reading between the
lines here.

that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products I
had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
misuse or abuse.

Rotel are quite expensive compared to certain other brands. Are not
JVC, Pioneer etc reliable? I've always found them so.

QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to, play
cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a home
hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
things.

I wonder what you mean by "play cleanly"? Don't clip, I guess. But how
loud do you like your music? One surely doesn't need to go to a Crown
to avoid clipping.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
using PCABX to test the efficacy of the encoding section of
a codec such as Dolby Digital is of zero relevance to someone
visiting an audio dealer to choose a DVD player or receiver.

Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number one.

That was my point, Mr. Krueger. PCABX is perfect for testing
the encoding of a codec. Which is why it is of no relevance
to someone looking to purchase an audio component which does
not embody an encoding section.

DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their codecs.
Whether these decoding sections vary sonically does not seem
to have been investigated very thoroughly.

No. And PCABX is of limited practical use when investigating
that performance in the context of purchasing an audio
component. You imagine a dealer will lend you a receiver
for benchtesting before you buy it?

snip of the usual namecalling from Mr. Krueger

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.

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?

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? AS I say
below:

I reiterate that I find it odd that two of the strongest
proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups, Mike McKelvy
and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX testing
and have not used it in the only circumstance where it might
be of practical help to them.

Everybody knows that setting up ABX tests requires skills
and equipment that aren't readily available to everybody.

"Everybody," Mr. Kreuger? When I made this exact point a few
years back, you claimed I was wrong, that ABX testing was _not_
difficult and that _anyone_ could do it, even when purchasing
audio components. What happened to change your mind and agree
with me? Were you just blowing smoke back then? Or are you
doing so now?

John Atkinson
Editor, Srereophile

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

"None, other than JoHn Atkinson."

No, that's incorrect too, as you would be aware if you did anything
other than scan the magazine occasionally on the newsstand or read
articles on our website. And you keep making this point about "AES
demos," Mr. Krueger. The organizers of those tests, David Clark,
Tom Nousaine, Dan Dugan, etc, all referred to them as tests and
indeed, the results were discussed in the AES Journal as though
they _were_ tests.

As you were not present at those tests, had no first-hand knowledge
of the tests, and are not a subscriber to the Journal, I fail to
see why you hold such strong opinions on them, Mr. Krueger. Unless,
of course, they are just another example of tests that produced
results that fail to fit in your faith so must be rejected out of
hand as "demos." "Pulling a Ferstler" is what that is called on the
newsgroups, Mr. Krueger; "bad science" is what it is called in the
outside world.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

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

"None, other than JoHn Atkinson."

No, that's incorrect too, as you would be aware if you did anything
other than scan the magazine occasionally on the newsstand or read
articles on our website. And you keep making this point about "AES
demos," Mr. Krueger. The organizers of those tests, David Clark,
Tom Nousaine, Dan Dugan, etc, all referred to them as tests and
indeed, the results were discussed in the AES Journal as though
they _were_ tests.

As you were not present at those tests, had no first-hand knowledge
of the tests, and are not a subscriber to the Journal, I fail to
see why you hold such strong opinions on them, Mr. Krueger. Unless,
of course, they are just another example of tests that produced
results that fail to fit in your faith so must be rejected out of
hand as "demos." "Pulling a Ferstler" is what that is called on the
newsgroups, Mr. Krueger; "bad science" is what it is called in the
outside world.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Maybe Arny will find the Fisher-Price toy wrecking ball under his Christmas
tree.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

using PCABX to test the efficacy of the encoding
section of a codec such as Dolby Digital is of zero
relevance to someone visiting an audio dealer to choose
a DVD player or receiver.

Given that DD receivers don't have encoding sections in
their codecs, this would be nonsense statement number
one.

That was my point, Mr. Krueger.

No it wasn't, it was simply a dumb mistake.

Just because you transposed encoding with decoding doesn't
mean that PCABX isn't equally efficient for testing the
efficacy of the decoding section such as Dolby Digital.

PCABX is perfect for
testing the encoding of a codec.

PCABX is equally perfect for testing the decoding of a
codec.

Which is why it is of no
relevance to someone looking to purchase an audio
component which
does not embody an encoding section.

You're just making another phony distinction, John because
PCABX is equally effective for evaluating encoders and
decoders. Their common property is that they are
digital-in, digital-out.


DD recieivers have only decoding sections in their
codecs. Whether these decoding sections vary sonically
does not seem to have been investigated very thoroughly.

No.

No what?

And PCABX is of limited practical use when
investigating that performance in the context of
purchasing an audio component.

No logical foundation for this claim as been laid. It's just
another one of your phoney pronouncements from on high,
John.

You're busted!

You imagine a dealer will
lend you a receiver
for benchtesting before you buy it?

Read on...

snip of the usual namecalling from Mr. Krueger

Namecalling in question related to statements, not people.
Atkinson is deceptively trying to make it seem that I was
insulting him personally. In fact I was commenting on his
statements.

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.

There was no language abusing you, John. I did make some
negative characterizations of what you said.

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.

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

John Atkinson wrote:

While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.


Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson. First, I am of the belief that
electrical, acoustical and physiological principles make it likely
that components within certain classes are more likely to sound the
same than not, when certain minimal levels of performance are met;
I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.
Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary. Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it
would require auditioning two different examples of every
component, as well as buying an ABX box. That is rather much to
ask of me, compared to asking it of, say, Stereophile. So in the
end the reason I have not done ABX of my gear is much the same
reason I haven't done them of the Nexium pills I take -- with one
difference: there *is* DBT data for the medicine. I would indeed
VERY MUCH like for there to be good DBT data available for
components on the market, as there are for FDA-approved
pharmaceuticals. I think the lack of same is a glaring deficiency
in the 'audiophile' hobby.

I do have the resources to do ABX testing of sound files, and have
done so. This suggests that had I multiple components
available to me, and an ABX box, I'd do ABX tests of them, too.
And you, no doubt, would the argue that my results only have
relevance to me. So why all this showy posturing on your part?

It is not required, btw, that what I write be consistent with what
Arny or any other objectivist write, on *every* point, any more
than Mikey Fremer has to agree at all times with Jonathan
Valin...though I would hope neither Arny or I would end up arguing
over the laughably dubious issues such 'golden ears' argue over
within their strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.

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. Hence my feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared
with, say, Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by
actual experience.



Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not. The
essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations to an
'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done this at
least three times, therefore matching your experience with ABX
tests. To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
different, amounts to special pleading.


If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components for me,
I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in NYC. Just
drop me an email.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I would hope neither
Arny or I would end up arguing over the laughably dubious
issues such 'golden ears' argue over within their
strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.

Hmm "The American Journal of Unicorn Horn Tests". That would
be a good name for one of the golden eared ragazines, no?

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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, [some of
which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
experience.

Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.

In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
_not_ comparing the original components.

The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
this at least three times...

Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,

...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
different, amounts to special pleading.

No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan. Just as 1000s of hours
of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
equivalent is "special pleading."

If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
NYC.

And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr.
Sullivan? If I run such tests at an audio show in the future,
you are perfectly welcome to take part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I would hope neither
Arny or I would end up arguing over the laughably dubious
issues such 'golden ears' argue over within their
strange, hermetic belief system -- the equivalent of
fighting over which unicorn has the sharpest horn.

Hmm "The American Journal of Unicorn Horn Tests". That would be a good
name for one of the golden eared ragazines, no?


As Good as "The SciientiffiK Jernal of Testing Krooturds" would be
as a name for your website.

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
Mr. Sullivan.

First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
physiological principles make it likely that components within
certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
certain minimal levels of performance are met...

"Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.

I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
how it can be accounted for.

Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary.

But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.
You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...

Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
stake?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

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

MINe 109 said:

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.

Thanks Mr. MiNR for pointing out, the turth about the test's. LOL!

John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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, [some of
which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
experience.

Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.

In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
_not_ comparing the original components.

But obviously this does not change the essense of ABX testing.
This only changes *what* is being ABX tested.

The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
this at least three times...

Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,

Actually, I tend to use whatever comes with the foobar2000
package, these days. In any case,m they're both software
implementations of an ABX box.


...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.


To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
different, amounts to special pleading.

No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan.

But I am not talking about a 'simulation' of anything. I am
talking about a real ABX test. Ultimately one is comparing
sounds. I compared the 'sound' of different file compression
algorithms; you compared the 'sound' of different electronics,

Just as 1000s of hours
of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
equivalent is "special pleading."

But I have not said I've done ABX of hardware. Nor is
ABX of potentially sound-altering hardware conceptually different from ABX
of potentially sound-altering software. Its still: here's A,
here's B, now determine which one X is.


If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
NYC.

And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr. Sullivan?

Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX testing
of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression that that makes
me a hypocrite. For me, it would be fun. For you, it might prove something,
I guess. Or maybe you'd prefer to just keep grinding this axe of yours down
to the nub.

If I run such tests at an audio show in
the future, you are perfectly welcome to take part. Editor, Stereophile

I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?
I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
get Tom Nousaine to proctor.




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"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.

John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
Mr. Sullivan.

First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
physiological principles make it likely that components within
certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
certain minimal levels of performance are met...

"Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.

sigh round and round we go...

I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
how it can be accounted for.

I certainly have knowledge of how the noise affects 'casual' listening,
having had the embarrassing experience of 'phantom switching' .
Btw, that noise is certainly present when your reviewers make their
swooning evaluations of gear, too.

I of course also have personal knowledge of 'noise' during the
ABX tests I've done of software. What makes you think ABX testing of
hardware introduces perceptual 'noise' that isn't present when ABX testing
of software is done?

Finally, what makes you think personal knowledge of any DBT
is necessary to accept the validity of DBT methodology?



Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary.

But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.

I have no knowledge that differences COULD be imaginary? What
an extraordinary statement. It denies the findings of some
decades of work on audio perception.

You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

I certainly have knowledge of components sounding different. I have
knowledge of that turning to to likely be true, and also likely to
be false.

Your line of reasoning is specious in that it would require ANYONE
who accepts the validity of a scientific method, to actually be
a scientist . This sort of *faith* is not equivalent to the
*faith* of the religious, for reasons that should be obvious to
someone with a physics background.


Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...

Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
stake?

How many times do I have to repost these reasons for you to understand
them?

My faith in DBT of medicines is at least as strong, yet I do not
feel compelled to perform my own DBTs.

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?


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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, [some of
which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
experience.

The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
this at least three times therefore matching your experience
with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.

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.

If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
NYC.

And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr.
Sullivan?

Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX
testing of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression
that that makes me a hypocrite.

That you have almost no experience of the test protocol you so strongly
advocate others use, would seem to be your problem, Mr. Sullivan, not
mine. Why I would be obliged to pay for your education in this area
escapes me.

If I run such tests at an audio show in the future,
you are perfectly welcome to take part.

I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?

Perhaps at the Los Angeles show in June 2006.

I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
get Tom Nousaine to proctor.

As Mr. Nousaine is employed by a magazine that competes with
Stereophile, I hardly think that would be approriate. But as I have
said in the past, Tom Nousaine is welcome to pay for a room at the
show to run his own listening tests. I suggest you run that by him,
Mr. Sullivan, see if Tom is willing to put his money where your
mouth is.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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, [some of
which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
experience.

Your premise here is that ABX of components is fundamentally
different from ABX of sound files. Problem is, it's not.

In what way? In an ABX test of anything other than something
that produces an an audio sound file as its output, a PCABX
involves _recordings_ of the original components. You are thus
_not_ comparing the original components.

But obviously this does not change the essense of ABX testing.
This only changes *what* is being ABX tested.

The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
this at least three times...

Using the PCABX program to compare sound files, you said in an
earlier posting, Mr. Sullivan,

Actually, I tend to use whatever comes with the foobar2000
package, these days. In any case,m they're both software
implementations of an ABX box.


...therefore matching your experience with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.


To claim that component ABX is somehow essentially
different, amounts to special pleading.

No, it's merely pointing out that a simulation of a test of
something like a cable or an amplifier or a loudspeaker is
still just a simulation, Mr. Sullivan.

But I am not talking about a 'simulation' of anything. I am
talking about a real ABX test. Ultimately one is comparing
sounds. I compared the 'sound' of different file compression
algorithms; you compared the 'sound' of different electronics,

Just as 1000s of hours
of experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator is still not
the same as actually flying an airplane. To say that they are
equivalent is "special pleading."

But I have not said I've done ABX of hardware. Nor is
ABX of potentially sound-altering hardware conceptually different from ABX
of potentially sound-altering software. Its still: here's A,
here's B, now determine which one X is.


If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components
for me, I would be happy to oblige you the next time I am in
NYC.

And just why would I go to that expense for you personally, Mr.
Sullivan?

Because you seem a bit obsessed with my lack of experience with ABX
testing
of hardware...and seem to be under the illogical impression that that
makes
me a hypocrite. For me, it would be fun. For you, it might prove
something,
I guess. Or maybe you'd prefer to just keep grinding this axe of yours
down
to the nub.

If I run such tests at an audio show in
the future, you are perfectly welcome to take part. Editor,
Stereophile

I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?
I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can
get Tom Nousaine to proctor.




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.

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
Mr. Sullivan.

First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
physiological principles make it likely that components within
certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
certain minimal levels of performance are met...

"Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.


Just as none of your reviewers "know" if what they are hearing is real or
just wishful thinking.

I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
how it can be accounted for.


You assume he is unaware of the voluminous reporting that has been done on
this subject.

Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary.

But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.
You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
point I have been repeatedly been making.

Is it faith to rely on the scientific work that has been done using the ABX
protocol, and knowing that it is a protocol used by some pretty well
respected organizations?

Then it would be faith to take any medication that used an ABX protocol.

Those with no experience
of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

Because you are calling a reliance on previous scinetific study, faith.

The Bug Eater bangs on the clubhouse door.

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.

You want a test between one amp you'll never be able to buy and some other
amp you can afford? Geez, Mickey, just buy the cheap one and be happy with
your blind faith in sameness.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
While you try to do so, I reiterate that I find it odd that two
of the strongest proponents of ABX testing on the newsgroups,
Mike McKelvy and Steve Sullivan, have no experience of true ABX
testing and have not used it in the only circumstance where it
might be of practical help to them.

Please cease and desist in this specious and disingenuous line of
reasoning , Mr. Atkinson.

I raise this argument precisely because it is _not_ specious,
Mr. Sullivan.

First, I am of the belief that electrical, acoustical and
physiological principles make it likely that components within
certain classes are more likely to sound the same than not, when
certain minimal levels of performance are met...

"Believe" but not know, Mr. Sullivan.

sigh round and round we go...

I also recognize the fundamentally 'noisy' nature of perception.

But as you have not taken part in any meaningful ABX tests of real
components, Mr. Sullivan -- see my other response to you this
morning for my reasoning behind this statement -- you have no
personal knowledge of how this "perceptual noise" affects a test or
how it can be accounted for.

I certainly have knowledge of how the noise affects 'casual' listening,
having had the embarrassing experience of 'phantom switching' .
Btw, that noise is certainly present when your reviewers make their
swooning evaluations of gear, too.

I of course also have personal knowledge of 'noise' during the
ABX tests I've done of software. What makes you think ABX testing of
hardware introduces perceptual 'noise' that isn't present when ABX testing
of software is done?

Finally, what makes you think personal knowledge of any DBT
is necessary to accept the validity of DBT methodology?



Second, when there is no DBT data available (my own or others'), I
therefore qualify claims I make about audible qualities of these
components, or even speakers (which are likely to sound diferent,
based on the priciples noted), noting that differences I hear could
be imaginary.

But you have no knowledge that this might be the case, Mr. Sullivan.

I have no knowledge that differences COULD be imaginary? What
an extraordinary statement. It denies the findings of some
decades of work on audio perception.

You are proceeding from faith rather than experience, which is the
point I have been repeatedly been making. Those with no experience
of something are more likely to have unquestioned faith in it than
those who do have experience. Which is why you, Mr, McKelvy and Mr.
Krueger become so abusive on this subject (you less than the others,
I do note): I am questioning your _faith_.

I certainly have knowledge of components sounding different. I have
knowledge of that turning to to likely be true, and also likely to
be false.

Your line of reasoning is specious in that it would require ANYONE
who accepts the validity of a scientific method, to actually be
a scientist . This sort of *faith* is not equivalent to the
*faith* of the religious, for reasons that should be obvious to
someone with a physics background.


Third, if I wanted to do ABX of components I own, it would require
auditioning two different examples of every component, as well as
buying an ABX box. That is rather much to ask of me...

Not according to Arny Krueger in many many postings extolling the
virtues of ABX testing to make purchase decisions. And again, if
your _faith_ in this method of testing is so strong, why wouldn't
you want to take the effort to use it when your own money is at
stake?

How many times do I have to repost these reasons for you to understand
them?

My faith in DBT of medicines is at least as strong, yet I do not
feel compelled to perform my own DBTs.

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?


Begin the Atkinson dance here.

According to JA, the fact that there is previous work demonstrating
conclusively, that people's perceptions in sighted listening are at the very
best, dubious, and easily fooled, should just be ignored by anyone who also
understands that ABX is a valid test method used every day by people doing
serious work in various aspects of Audio.

IOW just because you have not been in an orbiting spacecraft around the
globe, you can not say with certainty, that the earth is indeed round.

John Atkinson wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
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, [some of
which] were ABC/HR, and many of [which] involved monadic
testing with a hidden reference. In all, I have participated
in well over 100 such tests since my first in 1977. Hence my
feeling that my opinions on the subject, compared with, say,
Mike McKelvy or Steven Sullivan, are informed by actual
experience.

The essence of ABX is comparing two 'known' sound presentations
to an 'unknown' in order to identify the 'unknown'. I've done
this at least three times therefore matching your experience
with ABX tests.

Excuse me. Since when does 3 PCABX tests equate to my "well over
100" tests "since my first in 1977"?

I thought you'd said you've taken part in 3 *ABX* tests.

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.

Indeed I misread then. However, the idea that one has to take even
*one* ABX, to understand and accept the rationale for it, is still
a faulty one.

If you would like to *set up* some ABX tests of components for me, I would be
happy to oblige you the next time I am in NYC. And just why would I go to
that expense for you personally, Mr. Sullivan? Because you seem a bit obsessed
with my lack of experience with ABX testing of hardware...and seem to be under the
illogical impression that that makes me a hypocrite.

That you have almost no experience of the test protocol you so strongly
advocate others use, would seem to be your problem, Mr. Sullivan, not
mine. Why I would be obliged to pay for your education in this area
escapes me.

Good lord, Mr. Atkinson, since when is someone who *advocates* rigorous product
testing, required to *do* the product testing? No scientist 'requires'
this, nor do engineers, nor do consumer advocates. I have no experience with bench testing
either. Still, it would hardly be outre for me to advocate THAT as well, would it?

I've never said ANY consumer HAD to do blind testing to choose gear. My advocacy is for
*tempering claims of difference* with a recognition of the flaws of sighted comparison.
Indeed, my advice to consumers is to NOT WORRY so much about such differences, since they
stand a decent chance of being imaginary in the case of amps, cables, and CD players. 'Worry'
instead about the features offered by the gear that ARE likely to make a difference.
Further, my advocacy has been for audio journals, which DO have the means and opportunity to
do rigorous comparisons in a scientifically approved fashion -- i.e DOUBLE BLIND COMPARISONS,
of which ABX is one possible kind -- to step up to the plate and perform this service for
consumers. Apparently, though they lack the *motivation*. I'm guessing advertisers would be
really, really unhappy with negative DBT results, eh?

If I run such tests at an audio show in the future, you are perfectly welcome to
take part. I'd be very happy to. Do you plan to to this?

Perhaps at the Los Angeles show in June 2006.

Please keep me posted as these plans progress.

I'd be happy also to observe you take one... perhaps we can get Tom Nousaine to
proctor.

As Mr. Nousaine is employed by a magazine that competes with
Stereophile, I hardly think that would be approriate. But as I have
said in the past, Tom Nousaine is welcome to pay for a room at the
show to run his own listening tests. I suggest you run that by him,
Mr. Sullivan, see if Tom is willing to put his money where your
mouth is.

Oh dear, I see the lack of smiley has done me in again.

But let's run with it anyway . Suppose Mr. Nousaine attends the LA show (however he pays for
that privelage). Would you be willing to take an ABX test he sets up (which you and yours
can vet, of course) , or would you be willing to have him vet a test *you* set up?
Either of those would be fine by me. In fact, if Stereophile and TN could agree that the
condiitions were correct , before the test actually begins, that would be peachy. I'd be happy
to participate in either test.

I'm curious to know, though, what *me* taking an ABX test would prove, to you, unless it came
out positive? Surely a negative result by me for level-matched amps, for example, would prove
*nothing* to you or those of your mindset. I already am 'biased' towards thinking amps and
cable and DACs sound largely the same. It would only be a test of my discriminative
abilities, after all, though I promise to give it my very best shot. The utility of such DBTs
is to test people who already claim things sound *different*. What new insight would I
supposedly gain *about ABX tests* from taking a hardware ABX? That they're hard?

No, the *real* value to audiophilia would be for Stereophile's editorial board and reviwers to
take such tests. *They*, after all, are the ones *making the claims of difference* , and
worse, making them based on an intrinsically flawed comparison method. Not me.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:19:48 GMT, wrote:


My selection process is based on the fact that I have friends who are
audio
technicians who can do actual bench tests and let me know from both the
actual performance and their first hand experience. I get to know if a
unit
under consideration is reliable based on how often they see them in for
repair and what sort of real world performance they are capable of.

Again "performance" is ambiguous.

Not in the real world.

I assume you mean how they measure.

And what the audible consequences are when the FR is flat within a tenth of
a dB.


So your criteria are measurement and reliability, though the latter
can only be guessed at.


Based on the experience of myself and people who see the stuff that gets
repaired most often.


In other cases, such as CD players, the very first one I got as a present,
so I had no choice to make. The next one I got based on research of my
own

And what research would this be?

that indicated to me that any differences between them was likely to be so
small

I presume you mean sound quality differences. I'm reading between the
lines here.

that there was nothing really to worry about other than build quality,
so I chose a Rotel, base on my own personal experience with them from my
days selling audio equipment. They were among the most reliable products
I
had seen. Rarely would one of their units not work out of the box and if
did work out of the box, it never came back except for damage caused by
misuse or abuse.

Rotel are quite expensive compared to certain other brands. Are not
JVC, Pioneer etc reliable? I've always found them so.

Probably, and perhaps the next one I get will be from one of their lines.
As it stands now I have 4 devices that can play CD's, so that may be a
while.

QSC amp are another case in point. They do what they are supposed to,
play
cleanly and for a very long time, although the same could be said about a
lot of pro gear that some people seem to think don't have a place in a
home
hi-fi. Crown, Mackie and several others are equally competent and Crown,
and now Behringer have units without fans for those who worry about such
things.

I wonder what you mean by "play cleanly"?

If you don't understand what that means when talking about audio equipment,
then there's little point in talking to you at all.

Don't clip, I guess. But how
loud do you like your music?

Typically, when I'm alone and not bothering my wife and kids, I like it at
as close to live levels as possible, except when that's not safe for my
ears.

One surely doesn't need to go to a Crown
to avoid clipping.

You might want to research how much power an amp can be called on to produce
when playing at live levels, since you don't seem to take my word for
anything or don't understand typcal terms like "clean."

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


The Bug Eater bangs on the clubhouse door.

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.

You want a test between one amp you'll never be able to buy and some other
amp you can afford? Geez, Mickey, just buy the cheap one and be happy with
your blind faith in sameness.


Blind faith? Nonsense, that's for the people who believe that most
everything sounds different without any basis for the belief, in fact in
direct contradiction to the reliable studies that say otherwise.

Perhaps some people might find it usefull to know what if any difference
there is between a really expensive amp that puts out 160wpc @ 8 Ohms and
costs $179.00 vs. one that costs say $2000.00 for the same power.