Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
form of testing for audio differences have merit? Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988). Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981) Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p. 879 (1988) Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363 (1989) Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37. CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6 Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D., "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979) Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985) Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32 Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338. Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983). Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972) Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995). Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June) Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April) Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979) Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983) Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April 1985) Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7. Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996 Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears: Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb 1994. ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva, Switzerland (1994). Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491. Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion", Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989) Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)", Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991) Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995) Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997) Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp. 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997) Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038 (Dec 1992) Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L., Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128, (March 1997) Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/ Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988) Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990) Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6, November 1981 Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61 Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986). Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979) Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20 Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445. Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5], 20 pages. Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March). Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September). Those who oppose ABX (not the only double blind protocol for testing audio differences) say that it is not valid and they have lists of reasons for their belief. What they do not have, is any research that some other method is as revealing or reliable. Where is the research that clearly demonstrates some other method works as well or even at all? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Lionel" wrote in message ... a écrit : Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988). Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981) Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p. 879 (1988) Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363 (1989) Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37. CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6 Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D., "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979) Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985) Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32 Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338. Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983). Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972) Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995). Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June) Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April) Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979) Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983) Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April 1985) Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7. Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996 Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears: Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb 1994. ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva, Switzerland (1994). Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491. Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion", Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989) Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)", Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991) Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995) Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997) Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp. 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997) Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038 (Dec 1992) Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L., Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128, (March 1997) Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/ Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988) Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990) Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6, November 1981 Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61 Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986). Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979) Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20 Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445. Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5], 20 pages. Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March). Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September). Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Lionel" wrote in message ... a écrit : Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988). Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities" (1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981) Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p. 879 (1988) Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363 (1989) Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37. CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6 Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D., "Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979) Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September 1985) Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32 Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338. Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983). Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972) Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995). Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June) Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April) Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979) Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983) Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April 1985) Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7. Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996 Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears: Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb 1994. ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva, Switzerland (1994). Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491. Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion", Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989) Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)", Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991) Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995) Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997) Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp. 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997) Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038 (Dec 1992) Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L., Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128, (March 1997) Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/ Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988) Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990) Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6, November 1981 Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61 Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986). Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979) Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20 Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445. Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug) Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5], 20 pages. Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March). Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September). Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ? I'm not. I'm saying these are refernce books on the subject of ABX and DBT. There are no comprable published works on the subject of why some other form of testing is better than or equal to the efficacy obtained from blnd audio testing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Lionel" wrote in message ... a écrit : Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? [snip] Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ? Mikey has no choice. He lacks the intelligence to actually function at the level of analysis. Hence all he can do is "weigh" the material. Mikey, you should be very thorough. Obtain all the books, weigh them on your bathroom scale, and report the number to us. Then you can use them for **** tickets. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by Mikey. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by Mikey. Or you, otherwise you wouldn't say the idiotic things you do. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. If there is some research or published work contrary to the DBT protocols, where is it? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The mckelviphibian greeks
wrote in message nk.net... The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. False. Pure lie. A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the despicable Mikey McKelvihpibian |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? How many of these references have you even read? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The mckelviphibian greeks
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. False. Pure lie. A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the despicable Mikey McKelvihpibian Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just stamping your foot and deny the truth. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. .. .. .. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." You sneer, you call names, you deny, but you offer nothing that compares to the work done to demonstrate the efficacy of DBT or how people hear. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I know, you're just stirring the pot. I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. I must be interpreting this definition incorrectly - "covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science". Is this definition suggesting that there might be some areas, including music, that might be too complex to be understood and explained by science? Heresy, I say!! Behead the infidel!! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I know, you're just stirring the pot. I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen! As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted listening is effective. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid, nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern subtle difference. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message k.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I know, you're just stirring the pot. I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen! As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted listening is effective. If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might not be any. If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research, then why should someone else do it for you? Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to satisfy your own doubts! You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
wrote in message news "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid, nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern subtle difference. As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi comparisons. Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and high fidelity, noted. General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted. Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted. Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted. Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and pleasure of others. Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted. Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and useful instruments. General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted. Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message k.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I know, you're just stirring the pot. I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen! As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted listening is effective. If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might not be any. Bingo. If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research, then why should someone else do it for you? I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted listening. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to satisfy your own doubts! I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there were some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider, i'd certainly be willing to consider it. Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote? Theobvious answer is because there is nothing. You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message news "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid, nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern subtle difference. As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi comparisons. An obvious lie. Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and high fidelity, noted. Another obvious lie. General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted. Another obvious lie. Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted. Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them have you read? Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted. Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record. Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and pleasure of others. As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such a weak mind. Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted. There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools. Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and useful instruments. Another denail of reality. General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted. If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't function that way. Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals. Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? ..... a system they enjoy listening through. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Tommie didn't make the cut? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey: you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Nothing about duh-Mikey is remotely related to real science. He and Arnii traffic in some kind of traveling-medicine-show version of sicciccneneece. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
Clyde Slick said: Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Tommie didn't make the cut? Well, in my view Tommi is saner than Kroo**** and smarter than duh-Mikey. Not much of a compliment, I'll admit, but I'd say Nousiane is not the worst of the worst. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey speak with forked tongue
wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. False. Pure lie. A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the despicable Mikey McKelvihpibian Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just stamping your foot and deny the truth. Mikey speak with forked tongue, as do all amphibians. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message news "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid, nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern subtle difference. As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi comparisons. An obvious lie. Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and high fidelity, noted. Another obvious lie. General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted. Another obvious lie. Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted. Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them have you read? Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted. Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record. Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and pleasure of others. As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such a weak mind. Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted. There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools. Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and useful instruments. Another denail of reality. General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted. If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't function that way. Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals. Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted. JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message k.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message .. . wrote in message nk.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed. Where did you come up with that definition? The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in their fields. Known by you personally? A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of. How many of these references have you even read? Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer? Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to. It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment. Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell them what they hear. Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not reliable. If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some evidence. If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit. The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine subtle differences in audio components. Then I guess you just answered your own question. I didn't require an answer to that question, I know, you're just stirring the pot. I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX. The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen! As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted listening is effective. If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might not be any. Bingo. If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research, then why should someone else do it for you? I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted listening. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to satisfy your own doubts! I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there were some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider, i'd certainly be willing to consider it. Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote? Theobvious answer is because there is nothing. But it's not correct. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:25:01 GMT, wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. Yes That's CORRECT |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Mickey's big admission
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart. The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? sneer Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical than that. Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to show you no stinking science." you still haven't figure out that it's NOT about science. Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science. It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied. its just not about science. its about enjoying the playback of music. Its about enjoyment. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
The case for ABX
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other side has.....? .... a system they enjoy listening through. But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few differnces, no change would occur. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for enjoyment, not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey's toilet paper
wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message news "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "John Richards" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other form of testing for audio differences have merit? Define "scholarly". http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs. But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the article is true? All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets. As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid, nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern subtle difference. As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi comparisons. An obvious lie. Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and high fidelity, noted. Another obvious lie. General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted. Another obvious lie. Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted. Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them have you read? Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted. Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record. Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and pleasure of others. As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such a weak mind. Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted. There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools. Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and useful instruments. Another denail of reality. General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted. If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't function that way. Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals. Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted. Borg manner of speaking noted. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Brian agrees with me.
"Brian L. McCarty" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, wrote: "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message news [snip] JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT. Well, Brian, you got one part right. Mikey is an idiot. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
f.S. Tons of cheapgear | Pro Audio | |||
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case | Pro Audio | |||
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case | Pro Audio | |||
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed | Vacuum Tubes |