"EddieM" wrote in message


I would have thought that without that feature of the
ABX equipment being utilized, that seriously weakens the
generalizability of any null results.

It's not always practical or the best idea to let the
listener control the switchover points.

This is a very simple matter of imparity. The
testee/listener won't stand a chance against such
equipment.

The listener is not in competition with the ABX equipment,
if anything he's in competition with the equipment under
test.

Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add
'additional' variables of its own.

That can be determined.

What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve by
incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the
validity of the test ?

A more valid test for a given level of effort.

How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with
regards to its capability to
expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect
and differentiate subtle sound differences ?

Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that duplicate
the results of tests done with ABX equipment, supports the
idea that the equipment isn't masking differences that could
otherwise be heard.

Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a
judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch back
and forth until they're ready -- which is obviously
going to be very time consuming, but I don't see any
alternative to doing things whatever way is likely to be
most conducive to allowing differences to be detected.

I also read and that someone suggested wayy above,

You haven't read well enough, it seems. Please don't confuse
your lack of familiarity with the relevant facts for
limitations on all the ABX tests that have been done.

but I don't recall who, that the subject take more
time... over a
period of day, ... then do a slow switching in hour or
days, or just take the whole day for the trial. Then....
while you're at it, .... sit back ! relax ! and enjoy !

Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it
makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results harder
to do.

The obvious problem I see with these of course is that it
allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables
which are -- personal preferences and biases.

Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with sighted
tests - unacceptable variables which are -- personal
preferences and biases.

"EddieM" wrote in message

normanstrong wrote

snip

It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed
"no audible difference" based on the results. It should
always be stated as,


"Our tests failed to establish an audible difference."

Yes! Thank you for accepting that.

It's true that human beings are apt to interpret
consistent failure to show a difference as indicating
that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical
failure, not a scientific one.


And that is because the test is farrr from scientific.

Thank you for that too.

What, your grauitous, unscientific claim?

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

This may be of interest. I once owned an Audio Research
SP-8 preamp, and a "magic brick". It was felt the brick
made a slight difference - nothing dramatic - when
placed on the SP-8 in sighted listening.

A friend had a brand x of about the same cost. We
compared the two (sighted comparison)and there was no
question but what brand X was "warmer" and "had more
ambience". Now we placed the magic brick on brand X and
felt sure it was now doing its "thing" and making a
difference. Investigation showed the SP-8 to have a much
smaller circuit board for the RIAA phono stage, in fact
brand X had one large board about 7x14 inches with all
the circuitry on that one board except a cut-out in one
corner for the power transformer.

The board was flexible, and we suspected the input tubes
were acting as microphones and creating "ambience" from
the delayed sound waves vibrating them. We staunched up
the board, listened and that "warm" and ambient sound
was no longer there in comparison with the SP-8. The
boards on both preamps were then braced and damping
placed around the tubes themselves, and we then felt
the SP-8 had a little more detail (sighted listening
again). Both however sounded good and we were both
content with our preamps.

Now a question.. would ABX or tests into a dummy load
have shown up the difference?

That there was an audible difference, is a speculative
hypothesis, not a fact.

That the audible difference was due to microphonics is a
speculative hypothesis, not a fact.

How deep do you want to stack your speculative
hypotheses?

Are you are implying the effect of a microphonic tube is
not audible?

It all depends.

Also your lack of reply to the question is noted.

No reasonable question has been asked.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family.

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
and the results?

Published in the May 1992, January 1993, September 1993, and
August 1994 issues of the magazine.

Any of them in the archives. I looked through half the available
categories for Aug, '94 and didn't come across anything.

I haven't posted these reviews yet. I am slowly working my way backward
through the issues. The on-line equipment report archives are 95%
complete from the presnt-day back through 1997, but it gets very
spotty before 1997.

the search tool is kind of lame. I searched May, 1992
in the magazine and got 536 hits. None on the first couple
pages were actually May, 1992.

That's because the engine interprets the comma as a Boolean "or"
operator. To search on the phrase May, 1992 rather than May OR 1992,
you need to enclose the string in quotation marks: "May, 1992"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Steven Sullivan wrote:
And why, oh why don't you simple *DO SOME 'PROPER'
ABX TESTS' if you find the ones *you* know about
to be so flawed?

I have taken part in several ABX tests over the years, Mr.
Sullivan, as well as many other blind, non-ABX tests, some
of which produced null results, some of which produced
identification. I assume you have also taken part in many
DBTs over the years, Mr. Sullivan. Did any of _those_
produce identification of the DUTs?

Anybody who wants to identify various kinds of audio
products based on DBTs need only visit
http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm .

Well, no, as has been pointed out to you before, Mr.
Krueger, PC-ABX allows the listener to blind-test digitized
audio files, not the products themselves. But in any case, why
are you answering a direct question asked of Steven Sullivan?
As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had
introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems
reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience? I
wait his response with interest, as I will be suprised indeed
if his experience of blind tests is as extensive as my own.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Steven Sullivan wrote:
And why, oh why don't you simple *DO SOME 'PROPER'
ABX TESTS' if you find the ones *you* know about
to be so flawed?

I have taken part in several ABX tests over the years,
Mr. Sullivan, as well as many other blind, non-ABX
tests, some of which produced null results, some of
which produced identification. I assume you have also
taken part in many DBTs over the years, Mr. Sullivan.
Did any of _those_ produce identification of the DUTs?

Anybody who wants to identify various kinds of audio
products based on DBTs need only visit
http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm .

Well, no, as has been pointed out to you before, Mr.
Krueger, PC-ABX allows the listener to blind-test
digitized audio files, not the products themselves.

Consier any listening test, which only allows the listener
to blind test the sound coming out of loudspeakers in rooms,
not the actual signals coming out of the UUTs.

The next logical question is to ask which masks more,
loudspeakers in rooms, or digital analog - digital
converters or speakers in rooms. The answer to that
questions seems to be obvious to just about anybody but Mr
Atkinson - speakers in rooms are among the mostly horribly
masking things in audio. Why, speakers in rooms are so bad
that they're almost as bad as microphones in rooms.

So there you have it - Atkinson has a fit over relatively
innocious things like good analog - digital converters,
while hoping he can keep people from properly prioritizing
the far larger masking effects of speakers and microphones
in rooms.

Just in case people don't want to take my comments about the
lack of masking effects in good analog - digital
converters on faith, I posted
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm . This
shows the potentialy audible effects of routing musical
samples through some good converters, up to 20 times. While
Atkinson seems to want to dismiss this rather compelling
evidence about how good converters can really be, the test
is exact - there's nothing but the converters being tested
in the test.

Bottom line is that in Atkinson's world view it *must* be
that good converters are virtually *guaranteed* to be
totally confounding influences in any listening test. After
all, his magazine has devoted acres of print to technical
tests and poetry about how converter "A" sounds worlds
different than converter "B".

Back in the real world I suggest that one and all listen for
themselves and reach whatever conclusions their ears (and
not their eyes) present to their brains. IOW, don't take
Stereophile and its stable of commercially-stimulated audio
paranoids and poets as sources of gospel truth. Even
Atkinson has recently admited here that his magazine is
nothing but anecdotes - no science visible or intended.

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote



I would have thought that without that feature of the
ABX equipment being utilized, that seriously weakens the
generalizability of any null results.

It's not always practical or the best idea to let the listener control the
switchover points.


This is a very simple matter of imparity. The
testee/listener won't stand a chance against such
equipment.


The listener is not in competition with the ABX equipment, if anything he's
in competition with the equipment under test.


Then why is the ABX box in between the listener and the DUT ?

So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there to justify that
it will have no impact on the listener's ability to discern sound
differences, right?



Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add 'additional'
variables of its own.

That can be determined.


Can you clarify ?


What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve by
incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the
validity of the test ?

A more valid test for a given level of effort.


Therefore the listener must meet the same level of performance
and precision set forth by the ABX equip 'cause if he fail to detect,
the resulting data at the end of the experiment will be corroborated
by the ABX equip. as legitimate, no?

The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision.
No guessing, right ?


How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with
regards to its capability to
expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect
and differentiate subtle sound differences ?

Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that duplicate the results of
tests done with ABX equipment, supports the idea that the equipment isn't
masking differences that could otherwise be heard.


I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the differences
that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking how does the box
validly justify itself in exposing the listener ability to detect
subtle differences.


Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a
judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch back
and forth until they're ready -- which is obviously
going to be very time consuming, but I don't see any
alternative to doing things whatever way is likely to be
most conducive to allowing differences to be detected.

I also read and that someone suggested wayy above,

You haven't read well enough, it seems. Please don't confuse your lack of
familiarity with the relevant facts for limitations on all the ABX tests
that have been done.


What are you talking about ?


but I don't recall who, that the subject take more time... over a period
of day, ... then do a slow switching in hour or days, or just take the whole
day for the trial. Then....
while you're at it, .... sit back ! relax ! and enjoy !

Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it makes obtaining the
most sensitive possible results harder to do.

Good.


The obvious problem I see with these of course is that it
allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables
which are -- personal preferences and biases.

Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with sighted tests -
unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases.


We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about long term,
extended listening comparison under blind test condition.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "ScottW" wrote in message
: news:4mVKe.302$Ji.274@lakeread02
:
: (1) What is the center frequency of the alleged anamoly?
:
: (2) What is the bandwidth of the alleged anamoly?
:
: Yawn.
:

holy malony
what's an alleged anamoly ?
maybe jclause can tell
Sander can sure as hell
wonder oly ?

R.

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
normanstrong wrote

snip

It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed
"no audible difference" based on the results. It should
always be stated as,


"Our tests failed to establish an audible difference."

Yes! Thank you for accepting that.

It's true that human beings are apt to interpret
consistent failure to show a difference as indicating
that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical
failure, not a scientific one.


And that is because the test is farrr from scientific.

Thank you for that too.

What, your grauitous, unscientific claim?


Well don't get mad 'cause I think that Rao is now able to
get Mr. Norm Strong to recognize that abx/dbt isn't a valid
methodology for audiophiles to discern subtle differences.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:40:42 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton said:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Only reason Cosworth still exists is because of Ford.

So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering
talent.....................

Pukey, I think somebody has pushed your buttons and you're steaming.

When you say "good cars", don't you mean cars that you like? Specifically,
don't you mean cars that are designed to be fun to drive, responsive
rather than cushy?

For me to drive, yes. But I include well-made, quiet and comfortable
saloons/sedans, such as Lexus make.

And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American
companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers?

That's true of all companies that are still in business.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "John Atkinson" wrote
: in message
:
: But also, from my experience of having taken part in some
: of those tests as
: a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to introduce
: an element of confusion into the scoring, thus increasing
: the possibility of a null result.
:
: Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia.
:
hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, there were
definite incentives to get the sample size and rate as low as possible:
to get an adequate duration with the limitations of the technically &
economically viable solution available in 1980.
that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
Rudy

nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit linear coded format.
Sony upped that to 16....come on, 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin?
Listening tests ???

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting
the UK, I'm knocking the US.

Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family.

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering
talent.....................

And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American
companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers?

That's true of all companies that are still in business.

Thank you for recanting your previous stupid claim.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation?

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting
the UK, I'm knocking the US.

And what YOU fail to understand is the fact that I'm not defending US
cars here but knocking British cars, many of which historically are
cute little cars that you pray start in the morning (but see below).

What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and
environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an
overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general
aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because
America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on
emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance
(as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which
adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those
over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").

Having said all that, I think that the US car segment is seriously
out-of-whack and only recently has actually tried to market some
interesting and capable cars. It's pretty easy to take a mid 70s
Arny-era Chrysler product and hold it up to ridicule. Heck, I'll even
play that game. Corinthian leather indeed.

One of my favorite days in the UK was visiting Malvern Link. It was
fun watching tinsmiths banging away at fenders and seeing row after
row of ash (?) frames just waiting for their Rover engines...a
marvelous day walking through the factory.

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
Scott W:

Thats fine I guess... I don't find blind speaker tests all that
interesting

Why? I think that blind testing of loudspeakers does a lot of good. I
have seen large speakers lack in the bass when listened to blind, but
sounding very heavy when seen.

Try blind speaker tesing, if you happen to have two sets of speakers
that can be moved to one room and set up with some cloth between you
and the speakers. Or even simpler, turn your back to the speakers!
Granted, you lose some highs and imaging in the latter case, but the
difference in the sound of the speakers comes through fine.

I'm always surprised at the unwillingness of audio professionals to comment
on the sound of speakers whose identity they do not know. One might think
that being able to listen to a variety of program material over a
significant length of time would be sufficient to allow an evaluation of an
unknown speaker.

Apparently not. I'm unaware of it ever being done. Wine connoisseurs can
tell you a lot about a wine from simply tasting it. Audio experts can't
even tell you if a speaker is cheap or expensive until they see the beast.

Norm Strong

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

This may be of interest. I once owned an Audio Research
SP-8 preamp, and a "magic brick". It was felt the brick
made a slight difference - nothing dramatic - when
placed on the SP-8 in sighted listening.

A friend had a brand x of about the same cost. We
compared the two (sighted comparison)and there was no
question but what brand X was "warmer" and "had more
ambience". Now we placed the magic brick on brand X and
felt sure it was now doing its "thing" and making a
difference. Investigation showed the SP-8 to have a much
smaller circuit board for the RIAA phono stage, in fact
brand X had one large board about 7x14 inches with all
the circuitry on that one board except a cut-out in one
corner for the power transformer.

The board was flexible, and we suspected the input tubes
were acting as microphones and creating "ambience" from
the delayed sound waves vibrating them. We staunched up
the board, listened and that "warm" and ambient sound
was no longer there in comparison with the SP-8. The
boards on both preamps were then braced and damping
placed around the tubes themselves, and we then felt
the SP-8 had a little more detail (sighted listening
again). Both however sounded good and we were both
content with our preamps.

Now a question.. would ABX or tests into a dummy load
have shown up the difference?

That there was an audible difference, is a speculative
hypothesis, not a fact.

That the audible difference was due to microphonics is a
speculative hypothesis, not a fact.

How deep do you want to stack your speculative
hypotheses?

Are you implying the effect of a microphonic tube is
not audible?

It all depends.

On what?


Also your lack of reply to the question is noted.

No reasonable question has been asked.


The question rephrased:
Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

JC the elder

"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not. Exposing a tube to acoustic vibration can but this
would happen in the course of normal use & a test.

If you want to insure microphonics aren't at play with your amp in a test,
you either seperate the amp and speakers or use a simulated load and
headphones. I suggest the former.

ScottW

In article o9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02, says...


"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not.


Then the ABX test could be misleading, especially to someone
with a tube preamp, who was unaware of the test's limitation.
Unless of course AK has noted this limitation on his web site.

JC the elder

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:30:58 -0700, normanstrong wrote:
snip

I'm always surprised at the unwillingness of audio professionals to comment
on the sound of speakers whose identity they do not know. One might think
that being able to listen to a variety of program material over a
significant length of time would be sufficient to allow an evaluation of an
unknown speaker.

Apparently not. I'm unaware of it ever being done. Wine connoisseurs can
tell you a lot about a wine from simply tasting it. Audio experts can't
even tell you if a speaker is cheap or expensive until they see the beast.

Probably because the correlation between price and sound quality is
so weak. The price is more down to branding.

/Martin

ScottW wrote:
How many times has your test data showed some rather significant
shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised?

Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue
of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews.
But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear
regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am
interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they
think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the
measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for
publication.

When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear
what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"jclause" wrote in message
...
In article o9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02, says...


"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not.


Then the ABX test could be misleading, especially to someone
with a tube preamp, who was unaware of the test's limitation.
Unless of course AK has noted this limitation on his web site.

We have often pointed out the potential for masking in the listeners
playback system. Arny points to listener training tools to certify
the playback system as transparent. I don't think that is sufficiently
comprehensive myself.

ScottW

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
How many times has your test data showed some rather significant
shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised?

Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue
of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews.
But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear
regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am
interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they
think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the
measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for
publication.

When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear
what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it?

I recognize ABX speakers is a bit of a task.... but the cables present
a perfect opportunity to at least validate there is some audible
difference against a standard which measurements may explain.

More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.
Alas.. the lack of reviewers routinely conducting such tests will leave
that opportunity missed

ScottW

In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect.

ScottW

FantasyBorg accidentally impales himself.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect.

That's not what Nousiane and Krooger say. Are you trying to get yourself
branded as an apostate?

"EddieM" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote

The listener is not in competition with the ABX
equipment, if anything he's in competition with the
equipment under test.

Then why is the ABX box in between the listener and the
DUT ?

ABX boxes facilitate blind tests. Sighted tests are often
totally invalid.

So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there
to justify that it will have no impact on the listener's
ability to discern sound differences, right?

No.

If the listener fails to detect it could well be that there
is nothing to detect.

ABX box is there to help ensure that the listener isn't just
reported his prejudices and biases.

Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add
'additional' variables of its own.

That can be determined.

Can you clarify ?

Sure, which equipment are you talking about?

What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve
by incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the
validity of the test ?

A more valid test for a given level of effort.

Therefore the listener must meet the same level of
performance and precision set forth by the ABX equipment,.

No, the listener must meet his own standard for his personal
best.


'cause if he
fail to detect, the resulting data at the end of the
experiment will be corroborated by the ABX equip. as
legitimate, no?

Its the corroboration of the listener's responses by the ABX
equipment that tells us whether the listener's responses are
legitimate or just random guessing.

The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision.
No guessing, right ?

If the listener is just guessing, then the ABX equipment
will help identify that.

How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with
regards to its capability to
expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect
and differentiate subtle sound differences ?

Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that
duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment,
supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking
differences that could otherwise be heard.

I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the
differences that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking how
does the box validly justify itself in exposing the
listener ability
to detect subtle differences.

The box is a simple mechanism with a simple function. If it
executes that simple function properly, then it will expose
whether or not the listener is detecting subtle differences.
Whether or not the box is executing its simple function can
be determined by doing a test whose outcome is obvious, such
as when one of the two pieces of equipment being compared is
turned off and not responding at all.

Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a
judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch
back and forth until they're ready -- which is
obviously going to be very time consuming, but I don't
see any alternative to doing things whatever way is
likely to be most conducive to allowing differences to
be detected.


but I don't recall who, that the subject take more
time... over a period of day, ... then do a slow
switching in hour or days, or just take the whole day
for the trial. Then.... while you're at it, .... sit
back ! relax ! and
enjoy !

Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it
makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results
harder to do.

Good.


The obvious problem I see with these of course is that
it allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables
which are -- personal preferences and biases.

Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with
sighted tests - unacceptable variables which are --
personal preferences and biases.

We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about
long term, extended listening comparison under blind test
condition.

Then the listener's personal preferences and biases are
removed as influenced in the test by the proper use of the
ABX box to do a blind test.

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


Stewart Pinkerton said:

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation?


LOL!

Sounds like Stoopi is on crystal meth these days.


Cheers,

Margaret

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

But also, from my experience of having taken part in
some of those tests as
a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to
introduce an element of confusion into the scoring,
thus increasing the possibility of a null result.

Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia.

hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
there were definite incentives to get the sample size and
rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration with
the limitations of the technically & economically viable
solution available in 1980.
that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
Rudy

nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit linear
coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, 14 bits
?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???

You can do listening tests comparing 14 bits to 16 bits
using files you can freely download at

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/bits44/index.htm


You can do listening tests comparing "24 bit" to 16 bit
recordings using files you can freely download at


http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

"EddieM" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote
normanstrong wrote

snip

It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed
"no audible difference" based on the results. It
should always be stated as,


"Our tests failed to establish an audible difference."

Yes! Thank you for accepting that.

It's true that human beings are apt to interpret
consistent failure to show a difference as indicating
that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical
failure, not a scientific one.


And that is because the test is farrr from scientific.

Thank you for that too.

What, your grauitous, unscientific claim?


Well don't get mad 'cause I think that Rao is now able to
get Mr. Norm Strong to recognize that abx/dbt isn't a
valid methodology for audiophiles to discern subtle
differences.

No such thing.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


More interesting... over time there may come an example
of audible differences for which measurements cannot
explain.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that
this is impossible.

Atkinson routines claims to do the impossible. Trouble is,
its impossible to get him to support his claims in a
meaningful way.

"jclause" wrote in message


The question rephrased:
Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

It can.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02
"jclause" wrote in message The question
rephrased:
Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not.

It does if you want it to.

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

FantasyBorg accidentally impales himself.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that
this is impossible.

I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect.

That's not what Nousiane and Krooger say.

Just another case of Middius lying out the back of his neck.

yawn.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting
the UK, I'm knocking the US.

And what YOU fail to understand is the fact that I'm not defending US
cars here but knocking British cars, many of which historically are
cute little cars that you pray start in the morning (but see below).

What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and
environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an
overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general
aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because
America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on
emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance
(as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which
adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those
over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").


Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces 300 hp
which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi Pinkerton
was blathering about. I drove one most of last winter in arctic conditions
and it performed flawlessly and looked good with the best seats of any car
I've ever been in. I've never felt so secure on slippery roads despite the
tremendous power. If only it hadn't been an ugly "seafoam" green.

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message


The question rephrased:
Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

It can.


How so?

JC the elder

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:34:31 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:00:38 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:43:31 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Indeed - we generally sent the dregs off to the colonies, as is now
obvious to all.....

Aussies listening in. Taking offence. Getting cranky. Invasion of RAO
by aus.hi-fi imminent......

Sorry mate, it's simply not *possible* to offend an okker........

Please explain.

And that's "ocker", incidentally. Of which I'm not one.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:47:33 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

I do have
certain knowledge that aBxism is a cure for a nonexistent disease, and one
of shockingly poor efficacy at that.

Hang on, George. If the disease doesn't exist how can anything be
efficacious?

Good point to bring out on. Allow me to clarify more clearly: aBxism is
not a cure, it's an affliction. Its true purpose (undisclosed publicly,
but apparent upon close inspection) is to suborn Normals into Hive-think.
Once subsumed, an assimilee will begin to make "logical" claims like "it
can't sound better because it costs more" and "that company advertises so
we all know they're corrupt".

Since the true purpose of aBxism is to aid in assimilation, one should
judge its efficacy based on its track record. There is a record of only
one successful assimilation as a result of the aBxism torture rituals. And
that individual fits nobody's definition of success.

I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about this whole ABX
thing. Firstly, I don't understand why A/Bing never seems to show up
any but the grossest differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I
know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD
through the two components in question to easily perceive the
difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B
switching. Which brings me to my next confusion: how do the proponents
of A/Bing explain this phenomenon? Do they ever move on to Step 2, and
if so, and assuming they actually hear a difference, do they then say,
"This must be imagined, or it would have shown up on A/Bing". Also,
how do they explain electronic design? I mean, if one amp is designed
one way, fastidiously using the best components, and another uses any
old components in a nevertheless competent fashion to arrive at
similar distortion and noise figures, are the A/Bers saying there
cannot be any audible difference given the figures, and if so, then
what is the point of manufacturers making top grade components like
Black Gate etc, or audio designers attempting to achieve the best
sound BEYOND the noise and distortion figures? Or is that all
audiophool mumbo jumbo? For myself I'm a cheapskate. I'd prefer to
believe that the cheapest items are as good as the other sort given
similar specs; unfortunately my ears too often, though not always,
tell me otherwise. I know all this has been thrashed out ad nauseam
here and elsewhere, but I'm still confused as to what the A/Bers
actually hear when they play a favourite track first on a $200 amp and
then on a $2000 one. I don't understand, above all, how this debate
ever arose in the first place, or what currently sustains it when the
evidence is clear.

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
...


I appreciate you keeping Arny on a leash. Thank you, John!


Leash or not, one still can't control where ARny will drop his turds.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----