The following is in reply to my question regarding DBT and audio, posed to
Sean Olive.
He stated in other correspondence, that one of the reasons he chose to work
for Harman, is that they use such tests. Perhaps if Ludivic had ever
bothered to write to Mr. Olive, he might have a better interpretation of
Sean's opinons on the subject of DBT and ABX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I still think that DBT's are necessary today so long as there is
uncertainty in the interpretation or meaning of the objective
measurements as they relate to the product's sound quality.

There are many situations when a DBT test is called for whether it is
electronics or loudspeakers.

1) A design or design change needs to be validated in terms of its
audible effect and influence, if any, on consumer acceptance.
2) Competitive Benchmarking - There is a need to know if a new product
is preferred over the competitors' products, and by how much.
3) A usability study needs to be done to determine the best
range/parameters for a user control (like a tone control)
4) A new technology (e.g. DSD or 192 khz sampling,surround matrix
algorithm) needs to be validated in terms of its audible
benefits/acceptance.

5) It is always prudent to have a scientific test record of a product's
sound quality before it is released into the marketplace.Why ? Because
some time after the product leaves the factory someone (
marketing-sales, retailers, reviewers and even consumers) will probably
question the sound quality of the product, whether or not the claims are
valid. When this happens, it is important to have a means to
intelligently address these claims. There is nothing better than to have
documented, scientific test results that can show that sound quality is
not an issue. Usually when I show these people the listening test
results and the rigorous scientific method behind them, the sound
quality issue goes away.




All of these five applications involve listening tests which if not
performed double-blind, are subject to all of the biases and errors
inherent to a sighted test.

I would not want to bet my professional reputation and career on
listening evaluations that were not performed double-blind. Would you?


You can quote me on that.

Cheers,
Sean

wrote:
The following is in reply to my question regarding DBT and audio, posed to
Sean Olive.
He stated in other correspondence, that one of the reasons he chose to work
for Harman, is that they use such tests. Perhaps if Ludivic had ever
bothered to write to Mr. Olive, he might have a better interpretation of
Sean's opinons on the subject of DBT and ABX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I still think that DBT's are necessary today so long as there is
uncertainty in the interpretation or meaning of the objective
measurements as they relate to the product's sound quality.

There are many situations when a DBT test is called for whether it is
electronics or loudspeakers.

1) A design or design change needs to be validated in terms of its
audible effect and influence, if any, on consumer acceptance.
2) Competitive Benchmarking - There is a need to know if a new product
is preferred over the competitors' products, and by how much.
3) A usability study needs to be done to determine the best
range/parameters for a user control (like a tone control)
4) A new technology (e.g. DSD or 192 khz sampling,surround matrix
algorithm) needs to be validated in terms of its audible
benefits/acceptance.

5) It is always prudent to have a scientific test record of a product's
sound quality before it is released into the marketplace.Why ? Because
some time after the product leaves the factory someone (
marketing-sales, retailers, reviewers and even consumers) will probably
question the sound quality of the product, whether or not the claims are
valid. When this happens, it is important to have a means to
intelligently address these claims. There is nothing better than to have
documented, scientific test results that can show that sound quality is
not an issue. Usually when I show these people the listening test
results and the rigorous scientific method behind them, the sound
quality issue goes away.




All of these five applications involve listening tests which if not
performed double-blind, are subject to all of the biases and errors
inherent to a sighted test.

I would not want to bet my professional reputation and career on
listening evaluations that were not performed double-blind. Would you?


You can quote me on that.

Cheers,
Sean

Oh dear,dear,
Good old NYOB is crowbarring an open door 2nd time in one week.
I told him three days ago that there is no doubt that DBT is an
excellent precaution against one form of bias when comparing audio
components. (ABX is another matter entirely). Perhaps NYOB would like
to quote one word of mine to the contrary. But I said and repeat that
I will not accept the opinion of a teen age boomboxer about what I
should buy for my listening even though he used double or triple or nth
power blind and I guess the same goes for following NYOBs preferences
double-blind or sighted. Double blind or not everyone's opinions are
his own.
Dear NYOB, I was researching drug therapy for schistosomiasis double
blind with The Med. Research Ccil of U.K., the cradle of DBT testing
before you ever heard the word. But we did not ask the patients to dot
"yes" or "no". We checked their progress with OBJECTIVE (yes,
objective!) data. There are DBTs and DBTs.
Also I published in the "Audio Amateur" a proposal for simultaneous
testing of components- yes, double blind- contrary to Arny's travesty
of it.
But I weould not dream of asserting that my results "prove" something
for everyone to follow because I got them double blind They are just MY
results with the mental make up I have.
Ludovic Mirabel
I summarised Sean Olive's paper in RAHE one and a half year ago. I
sent him the copy with some comments. Lately , spontaneously, he sent
me the copies of all his papers with a compliment I did not deserve.

wrote:
The following is in reply to my question regarding DBT and audio, posed to
Sean Olive.
He stated in other correspondence, that one of the reasons he chose to work
for Harman, is that they use such tests. Perhaps if Ludivic had ever
bothered to write to Mr. Olive, he might have a better interpretation of
Sean's opinons on the subject of DBT and ABX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I still think that DBT's are necessary today so long as there is
uncertainty in the interpretation or meaning of the objective
measurements as they relate to the product's sound quality.

There are many situations when a DBT test is called for whether it is
electronics or loudspeakers.

1) A design or design change needs to be validated in terms of its
audible effect and influence, if any, on consumer acceptance.
2) Competitive Benchmarking - There is a need to know if a new product
is preferred over the competitors' products, and by how much.
3) A usability study needs to be done to determine the best
range/parameters for a user control (like a tone control)
4) A new technology (e.g. DSD or 192 khz sampling,surround matrix
algorithm) needs to be validated in terms of its audible
benefits/acceptance.

5) It is always prudent to have a scientific test record of a product's
sound quality before it is released into the marketplace.Why ? Because
some time after the product leaves the factory someone (
marketing-sales, retailers, reviewers and even consumers) will probably
question the sound quality of the product, whether or not the claims are
valid. When this happens, it is important to have a means to
intelligently address these claims. There is nothing better than to have
documented, scientific test results that can show that sound quality is
not an issue. Usually when I show these people the listening test
results and the rigorous scientific method behind them, the sound
quality issue goes away.




All of these five applications involve listening tests which if not
performed double-blind, are subject to all of the biases and errors
inherent to a sighted test.

I would not want to bet my professional reputation and career on
listening evaluations that were not performed double-blind. Would you?


You can quote me on that.

Cheers,
Sean

Oh dear,dear,
Good old NYOB is crowbarring an open door 2nd time in one week.
I told him three days ago that there is no doubt that DBT is an
excellent precaution against one form of bias when comparing audio
components. (ABX is another matter entirely). Perhaps NYOB would like
to quote one word of mine to the contrary. But I said and repeat that
I will not accept the opinion of a teen age boomboxer about what I
should buy for my listening even though he used double or triple or nth
power blind and I guess the same goes for following NYOBs preferences
double-blind or sighted. Double blind or not everyone's opinions are
his own.
Dear NYOB, I was researching drug therapy for schistosomiasis double
blind with The Med. Research Ccil of U.K., the cradle of DBT testing
before you ever heard the word. But we did not ask the patients to dot
"yes" or "no". We checked their progress with OBJECTIVE (yes,
objective!) data. There are DBTs and DBTs.
Also I published in the "Audio Amateur" a proposal for simultaneous
testing of components- yes, double blind- contrary to Arny's travesty
of it.
But I weould not dream of asserting that my results "prove" something
for everyone to follow because I got them double blind They are just MY
results with the mental make up I have.
Ludovic Mirabel
I summarised Sean Olive's paper in RAHE one and a half year ago. I
sent him the copy with some comments. Lately , spontaneously, he sent
me the copies of all his papers with a compliment I did not deserve.

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Oh dear,dear,
Good old NYOB is crowbarring an open door 2nd time in one week.
I told him three days ago that there is no doubt that DBT is an
excellent precaution against one form of bias when comparing audio
components. (ABX is another matter entirely). Perhaps NYOB would like
to quote one word of mine to the contrary. But I said and repeat that
I will not accept the opinion of a teen age boomboxer about what I
should buy for my listening even though he used double or triple or nth
power blind and I guess the same goes for following NYOBs preferences
double-blind or sighted. Double blind or not everyone's opinions are
his own.
Dear NYOB, I was researching drug therapy for schistosomiasis double
blind with The Med. Research Ccil of U.K., the cradle of DBT testing
before you ever heard the word. But we did not ask the patients to dot
"yes" or "no". We checked their progress with OBJECTIVE (yes,
objective!) data. There are DBTs and DBTs.
Also I published in the "Audio Amateur" a proposal for simultaneous
testing of components- yes, double blind- contrary to Arny's travesty
of it.
But I weould not dream of asserting that my results "prove" something
for everyone to follow because I got them double blind They are just MY
results with the mental make up I have.
Ludovic Mirabel
I summarised Sean Olive's paper in RAHE one and a half year ago. I
sent him the copy with some comments. Lately , spontaneously, he sent
me the copies of all his papers with a compliment I did not deserve.

Hear, hear!
If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective, and
through the magic of the ABX box, seek to convert it into an objective
enterprise. Objectification of the human mind is one of the less admirable
spinoffs of secular humanism, a mistake that also lead to the horrors of the
20th century "isms": fascism, communism, and unbridled capitalism. But
whether one counts one self a secular humanist or not (and I am one
myself!), the ABXers exhibit great arrogance in their confidence that they
understand the mind well enough to command performance. This cannot be done
now. When it can be done, we shall be humans no more, but mere slaves of the
machines.

George Middius chose the derisive term " 'borgs", to denote this attempt to
mechanize the soul. I considered this a "dig", until I understood that some
of the people on this group are, in fact, prisoners of more than an idea;
they are held captive by a pattern of thought. They are like ghosts who are
doomed to walk a certain path, or whisper a certain thing; the ghosts of
usenet.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:56:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

[snip]

Oh dear,dear,
Good old NYOB is crowbarring an open door 2nd time in one week.
I told him three days ago that there is no doubt that DBT is an
excellent precaution against one form of bias when comparing audio
components. (ABX is another matter entirely). Perhaps NYOB would like
to quote one word of mine to the contrary. But I said and repeat that
I will not accept the opinion of a teen age boomboxer about what I
should buy for my listening even though he used double or triple or nth
power blind and I guess the same goes for following NYOBs preferences
double-blind or sighted. Double blind or not everyone's opinions are
his own.
Dear NYOB, I was researching drug therapy for schistosomiasis double
blind with The Med. Research Ccil of U.K., the cradle of DBT testing
before you ever heard the word. But we did not ask the patients to dot
"yes" or "no". We checked their progress with OBJECTIVE (yes,
objective!) data. There are DBTs and DBTs.
Also I published in the "Audio Amateur" a proposal for simultaneous
testing of components- yes, double blind- contrary to Arny's travesty
of it.
But I weould not dream of asserting that my results "prove" something
for everyone to follow because I got them double blind They are just MY
results with the mental make up I have.
Ludovic Mirabel
I summarised Sean Olive's paper in RAHE one and a half year ago. I
sent him the copy with some comments. Lately , spontaneously, he sent
me the copies of all his papers with a compliment I did not deserve.

Hear, hear!
If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective, and
through the magic of the ABX box, seek to convert it into an objective
enterprise. Objectification of the human mind is one of the less admirable
spinoffs of secular humanism, a mistake that also lead to the horrors of the
20th century "isms": fascism, communism, and unbridled capitalism. But
whether one counts one self a secular humanist or not (and I am one
myself!), the ABXers exhibit great arrogance in their confidence that they
understand the mind well enough to command performance. This cannot be done
now. When it can be done, we shall be humans no more, but mere slaves of the
machines.

You mean....you mean Hitler is alive and well on RAO. :-(

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]
..

Hear, hear!

We've already established you don't very well.

If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective,

NO one has ever siad otherwise.

and
through the magic of the ABX box, seek to convert it into an objective
enterprise.

You're lying. It's using objective protocols to achieve more reliable
subjective results.

Objectification of the human mind is one of the less admirable
spinoffs of secular humanism,

So we now know you are one of the less admitable people.

a mistake that also lead to the horrors of the
20th century "isms": fascism, communism, and unbridled capitalism.

Those things have a lot to do with the abandonment of reason in favor of
whim worship.
Pretty muchthe same thing as those who complain that ABX is not reliable for
audio.

But
whether one counts one self a secular humanist or not (and I am one
myself!), the ABXers exhibit great arrogance in their confidence that they
understand the mind well enough to command performance.

It's understanding that if one wishes to get the most reliable evidence, one
needs reliable methods that remove bias. ABX is one of the methods for
accomplishing that.

This cannot be done
now. When it can be done, we shall be humans no more, but mere slaves of
the
machines.


Speak for yourself.

George Middius chose the derisive term " 'borgs", to denote this attempt
to
mechanize the soul.

You use other methods, but you are just as guilt of trying to mechanize and
dehumanize those you disagree with.

I considered this a "dig", until I understood that some
of the people on this group are, in fact, prisoners of more than an idea;
they are held captive by a pattern of thought.

Shall we consider that an admission?

They are like ghosts who are
doomed to walk a certain path, or whisper a certain thing; the ghosts of
usenet.

If by that, you mean that they are going to stay with what works and
continue to point out the errors of those who abandon reason, then you're
right.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:56:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

[snip]

Oh dear,dear,
Good old NYOB is crowbarring an open door 2nd time in one week.
I told him three days ago that there is no doubt that DBT is an
excellent precaution against one form of bias when comparing audio
components. (ABX is another matter entirely). Perhaps NYOB would like
to quote one word of mine to the contrary. But I said and repeat that
I will not accept the opinion of a teen age boomboxer about what I
should buy for my listening even though he used double or triple or nth
power blind and I guess the same goes for following NYOBs preferences
double-blind or sighted. Double blind or not everyone's opinions are
his own.
Dear NYOB, I was researching drug therapy for schistosomiasis double
blind with The Med. Research Ccil of U.K., the cradle of DBT testing
before you ever heard the word. But we did not ask the patients to dot
"yes" or "no". We checked their progress with OBJECTIVE (yes,
objective!) data. There are DBTs and DBTs.
Also I published in the "Audio Amateur" a proposal for simultaneous
testing of components- yes, double blind- contrary to Arny's travesty
of it.
But I weould not dream of asserting that my results "prove" something
for everyone to follow because I got them double blind They are just MY
results with the mental make up I have.
Ludovic Mirabel
I summarised Sean Olive's paper in RAHE one and a half year ago. I
sent him the copy with some comments. Lately , spontaneously, he sent
me the copies of all his papers with a compliment I did not deserve.

Hear, hear!
If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective, and
through the magic of the ABX box, seek to convert it into an objective
enterprise. Objectification of the human mind is one of the less
admirable
spinoffs of secular humanism, a mistake that also lead to the horrors of
the
20th century "isms": fascism, communism, and unbridled capitalism. But
whether one counts one self a secular humanist or not (and I am one
myself!), the ABXers exhibit great arrogance in their confidence that
they
understand the mind well enough to command performance. This cannot be
done
now. When it can be done, we shall be humans no more, but mere slaves of
the
machines.

You mean....you mean Hitler is alive and well on RAO. :-(
Yes, and Eichmann too.

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]
.

Hear, hear!

We've already established you don't very well.

If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and
completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective,

NO one has ever siad otherwise.

And that's the fatal flaw.
Case closed: ABX is a failure.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]
.

Hear, hear!

We've already established you don't very well.

If I may be so bold as to restate your accomplishment with slightly
different emphasis, you used ABX as an additional level of protection
against injection of human bias into an experimental procedure that was
already completely objective. This is admirable, thorough, and
completely
beyond approach.

But the audio ABXers take a process that is inherently subjective,

NO one has ever said otherwise.

And that's the fatal flaw.
Case closed: ABX is a failure.

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level matched
audio comparisons?

Those poor ****ers over and B&O and Harman are going to be in shock.

Speaking of shock, can you show us where the electrodes were attached to
your head?

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as well as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

Mickey's first DBT

date:
location:
equipment:
observers:
outcome:

We want to know about all of them. Take your time -- it's important to be
accurate about factual matters.

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


Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:


What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them being
good or bad?

Is your head always up your ass?

duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

No, I'm saying that they are good if there is a dispute over gear sojnding
different. In order to resolve that differnce, a DBT can settle it. If one
is knowledgeable enoug about the equipment one can find stuff that is
sonically transpearent and the need for a DBT is unnecessary. If one simply
likes a piece of equipment for whatever reason, they don't need to do a DBT.

Why won't you answer the question I put to you? Does a car mechanic have to
have desinged a car in order to know how it workds or how to fix it?



I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate?

Who said I was afraid? The one who seems afraid is you.

Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?

I don't own anything from Accuphase. What I know is that it is a good amp
that is transparent. I got it because I needed an amp at the time and it
was used and therefore not extravgently expensive. In fact I got it and a
Sumo electronic subwoofer xover for $500.00.

I'll say it again, you don't need to do something or have it done to know if
it has value.
I don't participate in drug trials but I know they are done with double
blind protocols, and very few of them wind up being harmful if taken as
directed. I also know they would never wind up on the market without such
testing.

Poor Mickey. Now that the truth is out, the Bug Eater is reduced to throwing
screaming tantrums and bashing his knuckles raw in frustration.

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

No, I'm saying that they are good if there is a dispute over gear sojnding
different.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? How can a person have a "dispute" with
himself?

Let's review: You are nothing more than a consumer. You have admitted you have
no experience and no prospects as an audio designer of any sort. (No surprise
there, but it's worth repeating.) You choose your own stuff the same way Normals
do. Furthermore, you have never participated in a single "test" of audio
equipment. Not one. Not ever.

Your prattling about the supposed virtues of "tests" is the epitome of blind
faith and mindless religious zealotry. You should get yourself ordained as an
aBxism Reverend. You certainly have the requisites: towering hypocrisy,
somnolent complacence in place of curiosity, and smug acceptance of untested
dogma.



..
..
..
..
..

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Mickey. Now that the truth is out, the Bug Eater is reduced to
throwing
screaming tantrums and bashing his knuckles raw in frustration.

More of your fantasy life.

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

No, I'm saying that they are good if there is a dispute over gear sounding
different.

Do you have any idea how stupid that is? How can a person have a "dispute"
with
himself?

Pick a word you like better then, how about quandry, or get out your
thesauraus.

A question arises as to te sound of 2 peieces of equipment. Does one sound
better or no different from another? If you want to know the answer and
you have the time and the incliniation, you do a DBT and find out. Or you
could have someone with meausrement gear, measure the FR and see how closely
the match. If it's within .1 dB at all frequencies, then you have answered
the question.


Let's review: You are nothing more than a consumer. You have admitted you
have
no experience and no prospects as an audio designer of any sort. (No
surprise
there, but it's worth repeating.)

Why is your lie worth repeating?

You choose your own stuff the same way Normals
do.

If you mean I choose it the same way as you George, then you are obviously
full of ****.

Furthermore, you have never participated in a single "test" of audio
equipment. Not one. Not ever.

So what?

Your prattling about the supposed virtues of "tests" is the epitome of
blind
faith and mindless religious zealotry.

No, that's the belief that sighted comparisons can tell you anything
meaningful about subtle differences. IOW, that's the people you call
normal.

You should get yourself ordained as an
aBxism Reverend. You certainly have the requisites: towering hypocrisy,
somnolent complacence in place of curiosity, and smug acceptance of
untested
dogma.

Dogma, that's what you "normal" cling so strongly to. Please Oh GOD, make
them stop with their demonic science. Make them stop with proof. We don't
care if we're stupid and pay too much. It's to hard to be diligent and find
out that everything we believe in is **** on a stick. We like our beliefs,
we don't want to know. We don't want to know.

Dogma is that which is not allowed to be challenged, if you have a better
more reliable method for revealing subtle differences between audio
components, submit it to be reviewed and challenged the way ABX and other
DBT protocols have. Then maybe if you have gotten something at least as
good as ABX, people will use it widely, like ABX.
Unfortunately, all you have is hysterical screams of dogma when you mean
reality, and hypocrisy, when you know it's reliance on evidence.

Stick a fork in you, pig, you're done.

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

No, I'm saying that they are good if there is a dispute over gear sojnding
different. In order to resolve that differnce, a DBT can settle it. If one
is knowledgeable enoug about the equipment one can find stuff that is
sonically transpearent and the need for a DBT is unnecessary. If one simply
likes a piece of equipment for whatever reason, they don't need to do a DBT.

Why won't you answer the question I put to you? Does a car mechanic have to
have desinged a car in order to know how it workds or how to fix it?



I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate?

Who said I was afraid? The one who seems afraid is you.

Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?

I don't own anything from Accuphase. What I know is that it is a good amp
that is transparent. I got it because I needed an amp at the time and it
was used and therefore not extravgently expensive. In fact I got it and a
Sumo electronic subwoofer xover for $500.00.

I'll say it again, you don't need to do something or have it done to know if
it has value.
I don't participate in drug trials but I know they are done with double
blind protocols, and very few of them wind up being harmful if taken as
directed. I also know they would never wind up on the market without such
testing.
__________________________________________________ ____

I don't participate in drug trials but I know they are done with double
blind protocols, and very few of them wind up being harmful if taken as
directed. I also know they would never wind up on the market without such
testing

I tried to teach you something about drug trials but it seems hopeless.
Like the others in your chapel you attempt to borrow the name of a
method invented for a specific purpose in a specific field with its
namesake in a field where it 1)does not apply, 2) becomes a caricature
of itself.
The only thing medical drug reseach has with DBT/ABX is the first half
of the name.
Medical DBT is an *evidence-based* method. Patient's opinion about the
result is not only not the final result but is discounted in some 40%
as "placebo effect" *unless there are objective data to support it*-
recovery, lab and Xray evidence, reintegration into society and
functioning (in psychiatry).
Please instruct yourself (and others in your chapel) before mouthing
off again.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your
hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled,
level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have
you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and
the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to
actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

No, I'm saying that they are good if there is a dispute over gear
sojnding
different. In order to resolve that differnce, a DBT can settle it. If
one
is knowledgeable enoug about the equipment one can find stuff that is
sonically transpearent and the need for a DBT is unnecessary. If one
simply
likes a piece of equipment for whatever reason, they don't need to do a
DBT.

Why won't you answer the question I put to you? Does a car mechanic have
to
have desinged a car in order to know how it workds or how to fix it?



I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate?

Who said I was afraid? The one who seems afraid is you.

Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?

I don't own anything from Accuphase. What I know is that it is a good
amp
that is transparent. I got it because I needed an amp at the time and it
was used and therefore not extravgently expensive. In fact I got it and
a
Sumo electronic subwoofer xover for $500.00.

I'll say it again, you don't need to do something or have it done to know
if
it has value.
I don't participate in drug trials but I know they are done with double
blind protocols, and very few of them wind up being harmful if taken as
directed. I also know they would never wind up on the market without
such
testing.
__________________________________________________ ____

I don't participate in drug trials but I know they are done with double
blind protocols, and very few of them wind up being harmful if taken as
directed. I also know they would never wind up on the market without
such
testing

I tried to teach you something about drug trials but it seems hopeless.

No, that would be trying to teach that audio ABX is still a useful protocol
and is used by people like Sean Olive though you seem to want to deny that.

Like the others in your chapel you attempt to borrow the name of a
method invented for a specific purpose in a specific field with its
namesake in a field where it 1)does not apply, 2) becomes a caricature
of itself.

I think we all know who the caricature is here, Lude.

The only thing medical drug reseach has with DBT/ABX is the first half
of the name.
Medical DBT is an *evidence-based* method. Patient's opinion about the
result is not only not the final result but is discounted in some 40%
as "placebo effect" *unless there are objective data to support it*-
recovery, lab and Xray evidence, reintegration into society and
functioning (in psychiatry).
Please instruct yourself (and others in your chapel) before mouthing
off again.
Ludovic Mirabel

Please try to understand that placebo effects show up in audio also.
Try to grasp the fact that audio ABX is and has never been anything les than
a subjective test, since we can't possibly hear what someone else does
exactly the same way. What we can do is take known accurate, that is
undistorted sound and play it through audio equipment and see how it comes
out. We can determine if it is audibly distorted after passing through the
audio equipment, and we can then send it to speakers that have a known
response.

Then we can have people listen and determine if a given sound is being
generated by A or B.

Things like the faceplate or other knowns about a piece of equipment are
placeboes, so they should be hidden from the person doing the listening, so
that only the sound is their focus.

That this sort of procedure is used routinely along with ABC/hr to make
dterminations about audio, is a fact. Get over it already.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:56:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"


You mean....you mean Hitler is alive and well on RAO. :-(

worst yet, 'De Gaulle' is here.

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


Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

Mickey's first DBT

date:
location:
equipment:
observers:
outcome:

We want to know about all of them. Take your time -- it's important to be
accurate about factual matters.


I've been away for two weeks on vacation, and
he still can't answer that.

wrote in message
nk.net...

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


Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:


What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being good or bad?

Is your head always up your ass?


In terms of your own equipment selections,
it is quite germaine as to whether you particpated in DBT's,
or whether you relied solely upon the results of other listeners.

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted
Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?


Mikey just demands that 'others' have to take them, although
he doesn't have to.

Clyde Slick said:

In terms of your own equipment selections,
it is quite germaine as to whether you particpated in DBT's,
or whether you relied solely upon the results of other listeners.

Mickey is now claiming that he based his choices on the "performance", but he
has denied learning what the "performance" is through any known means. Not by
direct audition, not by "bench tests", not by DBTs, and not by onanating over
the spec sheets.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:44:50 GMT, wrote:


sojnding
differnce
enoug
transpearent
desinged
workds

Spelling Bee anyone?

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:09:46 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

In terms of your own equipment selections,
it is quite germaine as to whether you particpated in DBT's,
or whether you relied solely upon the results of other listeners.

Mickey is now claiming that he based his choices on the "performance", but he
has denied learning what the "performance" is through any known means. Not by
direct audition, not by "bench tests", not by DBTs, and not by onanating over
the spec sheets.

Onanating. Does that hurt, George?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted
Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?


Mikey just demands that 'others' have to take them, although
he doesn't have to.
I don't demand they do anything, I simply point out that when there is a
claim of difference that shouldn't be there, ABX is a way to determine if
the differences are real.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

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


Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:


What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being good or bad?

Is your head always up your ass?


In terms of your own equipment selections,
it is quite germaine as to whether you particpated in DBT's,
or whether you relied solely upon the results of other listeners.
No, it's really not germaine at all.
The only time I relied on someone else's advice on electronics when when I
bought my first system. As it happened they were pretty good. I still have
the HK receiver from that deal.

In , Clyde Slick wrote :


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:56:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"


You mean....you mean Hitler is alive and well on RAO. :-(

worst yet, 'De Gaulle' is here.

Clyde Slick the RAO's resident pedophile is just coming back from sexual
tourism in some third-world countries.
No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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


duh-Mikey demonstrates that his head is harder than the sidewalk.

Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have
you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well
as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:

What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being
good or bad?

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted
Accuphase
amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?


Mikey just demands that 'others' have to take them, although
he doesn't have to.
I don't demand they do anything, I simply point out that when there is a
claim of difference that shouldn't be there, ABX is a way to determine if
the differences are real.


thanks for admitting that ABX is completely useless
for eliminating the bias of beleieving that things
sound the same. You only proffer it as a
'cure' for biases of difference.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

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


Mickey McMickey, get your fingers OUT of there and go wash your hands
this
minute! Just you wait till your father gets home!

It's a fatal flaw to do reliable, repeatable, bias controlled, level
matched
audio comparisons?

I guess you know all about these "comparisons". How many DBTs have you
performed, Mickey? Please list them all with dates and locations, as
well as
the equipment tested, the names of the witnesses or proctors, and the
outcomes. Here, I'll get you started:


What does my having done such comparisons or not have to do with them
being good or bad?

Is your head always up your ass?


In terms of your own equipment selections,
it is quite germaine as to whether you particpated in DBT's,
or whether you relied solely upon the results of other listeners.
No, it's really not germaine at all.
The only time I relied on someone else's advice on electronics when when I
bought my first system. As it happened they were pretty good. I still
have the HK receiver from that deal.
You are deceiving yourself, but you can't fool
the rest of us. You constantly offer up
the DBT's of others (whether the tests really
happened or not!) as support of your decisions to purchase
amps and cd [layers based upon specs rather than
evaluative lestening of "ANY" kind.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In , Clyde Slick wrote :


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:56:03 -0400, "Robert Morein"


You mean....you mean Hitler is alive and well on RAO. :-(

worst yet, 'De Gaulle' is here.

Clyde Slick the RAO's resident pedophile is just coming back from sexual
tourism in some third-world countries.
No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I visited the quaint cafes of CDG, if that's what you mean by
a third world country.

Clyde Slick said:

So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
participate in. Is that about the size of it?

I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted
Accuphase amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?

Mikey just demands that 'others' have to take them, although
he doesn't have to.

I think you're right. Where have we heard that before? ;-)



..
..
..
..

paul packer said:

Mickey is now claiming that he based his choices on the "performance", but he
has denied learning what the "performance" is through any known means. Not by
direct audition, not by "bench tests", not by DBTs, and not by onanating over
the spec sheets.

Onanating. Does that hurt, George?

Your trolls are getting feeble, paulie. BTW, I enjoyed your explication of Audio
Normalness directed at the Krooborg. The occasion of talking to Mr. **** is one
of the rare junctures in human commerce where prolixity is a virtue.

In answer to your question (and don't expect an overpowering efflorescence of
humor in response to such a feeble prod): Not for healthy human beings. I can't
speak for 'borgs, of course.


..
..
..
..
..

Clyde Slick wrote :

Clyde Slick the RAO's resident pedophile is just coming back from sexual
tourism in some third-world countries.
No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I visited the quaint cafes of CDG, if that's what you mean by
a third world country.

Are you telling me that you have spent holidays in CDG airport ?
I hope that they don't make you a discount on mineral water.

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Clyde Slick wrote :

Clyde Slick the RAO's resident pedophile is just coming back from sexual
tourism in some third-world countries.
No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I visited the quaint cafes of CDG, if that's what you mean by
a third world country.

Are you telling me that you have spent holidays in CDG airport ?

Why not? We've heard of this guy:

http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/airport.htm

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Lionel wrote:

Clyde Slick wrote :

Clyde Slick the RAO's resident pedophile is just coming back from
sexual
tourism in some third-world countries.
No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I visited the quaint cafes of CDG, if that's what you mean by
a third world country.

Are you telling me that you have spent holidays in CDG airport ?

Why not? We've heard of this guy:

http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/airport.htm


"At least" the empathetic staff gives him free water.

Tonight I made my reservations for my next trip, thankfuly,
I will be going through Milan.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:54:27 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I don't understand this language. Please explain.

On 28 Oct 2005 06:45:41 -0700, George Middius
wrote:



paul packer said:

Mickey is now claiming that he based his choices on the "performance", but he
has denied learning what the "performance" is through any known means. Not by
direct audition, not by "bench tests", not by DBTs, and not by onanating over
the spec sheets.

Onanating. Does that hurt, George?

Your trolls are getting feeble, paulie. BTW, I enjoyed your explication of Audio
Normalness directed at the Krooborg. The occasion of talking to Mr. **** is one
of the rare junctures in human commerce where prolixity is a virtue.

I hope you're not trying to tell me in a kind way that I'm
long-winded.

In , paul packer wrote :

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:54:27 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

No time to clean his glans that he's already entering in the scuffle.
What a health !!!

I don't understand this language. Please explain.

You will not like... Forget it.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...
:
:
:
: Clyde Slick said:
:
: So you're saying these "tests" are good, but not good enough to actually
: participate in. Is that about the size of it?
:
: I'll put it another way: If they're so good, why are you afraid to
: participate? Is it because you're afraid to find out your vaunted
: Accuphase amp is an overpriced, underperforming hunk of snake oil?
:
: Mikey just demands that 'others' have to take them, although
: he doesn't have to. *^*
:
: I think you're right. Where have we heard that before? ;-)
:
*^* JFF, i tried these:

hearing test, vision test, exams, education, lobotomy
(came to mind as initial candidates for Google)
here goes:
ht - 87
vt - 5
ex- 88
ed - 3750
lo - 126

hmm :-)
R.