About Us

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message . net...
(Howard Ferstler) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:V1j_a.90652$cF.28602@rwcrnsc53...

You continue repeating your revealed truth about the only path to
hi-fi heaven: level-matched DBTs.

I never said this. I only said (or at least implied) that if anyone
wants to be really sure about those supposed differences they would do
well to do some DBT work. They do not have to be on the spot and find
themselves shamed if they "fail" to hear differences. They can do the
work themselves with the help of someone who will not laugh at them if
they discover that their ears are not as golden as they previously
thought. Or, if they can get hold of an ABX device they can do the
comparing solo, with nobody around to laugh at them at all.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that some high-end journalists and
sales people have done this and discovered the embarrassing truth.
There is also no doubt in my mind that they kept the results quiet,
either because they would not let loose from their cherished and
long-held beliefs or else they realized what kind of financial issues
would result. How can you sell an expensive amp if it sounds no better
than a cheaper model? How can you laud the performance of an expensive
amp in a product review if it sounds no better than a cheaper model?

However, one need not know whether audible differences are truly
audible in order to be in "hi-fi heaven." The hobby can be a lot of
fun when it is simply supported by speculation. Speculation is often
more fun than knowing for sure, at least with some individuals. In
that case, go ahead and enjoy what you are doing. However, do not
expect to post material here about how ineffective the DBT protocol is
and not get any grief from other individuals. You might not like wht
the ABX Comparator can do, but that does not have any relationship at
all to the actual effectiveness of the device.

You also continue to ignore any
objections to this simplistic faith.

As best I can tell, your objections are that you simply do not like
the results that show up with certain ABX tests, or maybe any other
kind of level-matched DBT comparisons, either.

That's why in the end one gives
in- your eloquence wins.

My "eloquence" is not the issue. The issue is whether the ABX protocol
is as ineffective at doing what it is supposed to do as you claim.

I will not enlarge on what was stated ad nauseam previously. Most
people require ABX training- ask Krueger. Nobody knows how much, when
the traininng is complete if ever, how many are not trainable.

Nobody requires any training. If the individual can or cannot hear
differences, then the test has done its job. Be the participant
blessed with the hearing acuity of a cat or borderline deaf, it has
done its job. Be they well trained or just a casual enthusiast, the
test has done its job. Sure, training is not a bad idea, because if
there are audible differences it will assist an individual in spotting
them. However, all the training in the world will do no good if the
differences are below the threshold of audibility.

The
research to show that ABX does not interfere with their perceptions
does not exist.

Nonsense. How on earth would it interfere with their perceptions? What
you REALLY mean is that it interferes with their preconceptions.

Even the supertrained professionals of Sean Olive's
H-K. listening room varied from 30% correct answers to 80%- and much,
much worse for the panelists in the Stereo Review and Audio listening
tests.

What matters is if each individual can hear differences. Thirty
percent correct seems a bit weird, since guessing should only give
about fifty percent at best. Somebody would have to be screwing around
to only get 30 percent correct.

Olive is a very sharp guy. I find it hard to believe that he produced
a flawed test series. Do you have a site reference for that work he
did?

And so on and on- as before.
Your assertion that if an individual does not hear it with ABX he
will not hear it ever, runs counter to evidence that you do not deign
to consider.

Well, he may think he hears it during a sighted comparison, but I
would like to know just what a sighted test can do to improve listing
acuity, besides allowing the participant's preconceptions to declare a
"winner."

Let me tell you something about the real-life "listening tests".
You're familiar no doubt with a very low-tech instrument called
stethoscope. At an early stage in the medical school introductory
lessons to clinical medicine- ie. introductory lessons to train those
who will one day hold life-death issues in their hands- it becomes
apparent that a few hear more and most hear less. All of them using
the same technology and all of them with young,undamaged ears.. Those
who hear more assume that there is even more to hear when an
instructor says so. So they practice. A few of those become
cardiologists who had better hear heart murmurs inaudible to the
generality of physicians. It is their responsibility to decide whether
to direct the patient for surgery or hold off for a time.
Now the interesting thing to observe was that some of the med.
students who couldn't hear were quite aggressive about it and accused
their colleagues and their teachers of fantasising.
Till the technology supplied new tools. Phonocardiogram demonstrated
not just two or 3 or 4 but 6 different heart sounds. We trained and
some of us began hearing more. But not all- or else there would be no
specialisties and no specialists more equal than the other
specialists.
Still later angiography and so on became an added investigative
tool.
And what would a competent cardiologist say if you came to him with
an offer of "Listen to A. Next listen to B. Next listen to X and tell
me if X is more like A or B"? I'll leave it to your imagination.

You are making a rather simple procedure (the ABX listening comparison
with audio gear) into something much more complex than it needs to be.
To compare listening to complex musical passages for enjoyment to
listening for very detailed heartbeat differences misses the point.
The fact is that with the ABX series you are doing something without
sight clues that can determine if previous sight clues were coloring
the perceptions. Why on earth would you say that a sighted comparison
would be preferable to doing comparisons blind, if what you are after
is information about audible differences? If you do them sighted there
is no way to prove to anybody (including yourself) whether or not the
sight info colored the results. The ABX protocol (or any other decent
DBT protocol) eliminates that wild-card variable.

The truth is that psychometric DBTs have some resemblance to the
true drug research DBTs. They operate with an artefact and the subject
has to guess correctly. THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REFERENCE POINT.
The DBTs. for comparing components are 100% subjective. Anybody's
guess is as good as anyone else's.

I should hope so, given that the only result that really matters is
whether or not a given individual can hear differences. They can
publish the results of such a series in order to show that the
so-called "profound" differences that certain enthusiasts, certain
sales clerks, and certain journalists say exist are not really all
that "profound." However, the real bottom line is whether or not those
specific participants could hear differences. Whether they could or
could not, for them the test did its job.

If the results means that the participant can safely purchase a $500
amp instead of a $5000 amp, he should be happy. Yeah, I know that some
people want to spend that five grand, because for them doing so may be
a self-esteem and/or prestige issue. However, for a lot of us, saving
$4500 is a big deal.

And since the outcome is decided on
the basis of the majority vote and the majority is only averagely
gifted/trained you get null after null.

While a "majority vote" may mean something if you are going to publish
the results of a large series, the bottom line is what each individual
encountered. If they could hear no differences and everybody else
could, for them the results still are that THEY could hear no
differences. That is all that should matter to THEM.

Good for you if you're happy
with it. But don't tell anyone else that you had a "controlled" with
any validity for anybody.

You mean for anybody else. I'll do that. However, those other people
will at least begin to realize that all the hype some members of the
high end spout about so-called "profound" differences might just be
that: hype.

Not even you.

Dead wrong. For me, the results are definitive. For anybody else
taking such a test the results will be definitive, too - for them.

Because how would you know if
you wouldn't do better without the ABX routines handicapping you?

How would they handicap? You either can hear those differences or you
cannot. Why are you making such a big deal out of a rather simple
process? How is preventing sight information a handicap? Oops, I
forgot. Sight clues allow you to turn the comparison into a popularity
contest, with a favored amp (or set of wires) always mysteriously
coming out on top.

Howard Ferstler

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crazy market saturation!	CatalystX	Car Audio	48	February 12th 04 09:18 AM
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1	OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION	Audio Opinions	0	November 1st 03 08:14 AM
A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency	Arny Krueger	Audio Opinions	74	October 7th 03 05:56 PM
System balance for LP?	MiNE 109	Audio Opinions	41	August 10th 03 07:00 PM
gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out?	bryan	Car Audio	0	July 3rd 03 05:46 PM

Menu

About Us