Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363
(1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
(1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns, http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Those who oppose ABX (not the only double blind protocol for testing audio
differences) say that it is not valid and they have lists of reasons for
their belief.

What they do not have, is any research that some other method is as
revealing or reliable.

Where is the research that clearly demonstrates some other method works as
well or even at all?


  #2   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

a écrit :
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some other
form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for Statistical
Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of Internal Medicine,
108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36, p.
879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p. 363
(1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas, October
17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1 (September
1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30
No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi News
and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound Reproducing
Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol 65, pp 1019-1033
(1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169 (1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?"
Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April
1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive Methodolgies
for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding Systems",
Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15 September
1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations Research Center,
3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective Responses",
Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8, Feb
1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems", Geneva,
Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound
and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing",
Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns,
http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind
Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5],
20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?
  #3   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
a écrit :
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for
Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of
Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36,
p. 879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p.
363 (1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas,
October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1
(September 1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.
30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and
Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138,
(1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi
News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol
65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of
Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169
(1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio,
(April 1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive
Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding
Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15
September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations
Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective
Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8,
Feb 1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems",
Geneva, Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the
Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper",
Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term
Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128, (March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns,
http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the
Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized,
Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections
in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893
(H-5], 20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?



  #4   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
a écrit :
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for
Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of
Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 36,
p. 879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37, p.
363 (1989)
Carlstrom, David, Greenhill, Laurence, Krueger, Arnold, "Some
Amplifiers Do Sound Different", The Audio Amateur, 3/82, p. 30, 31, also
reprinted in Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Link House Magazines, United
Kingdom, Dec 1982, p. 37.
CBC Enterprises, "Science and Deception, Parts I-IV", Ideas,
October 17, 1982, CBC Transcripts, P. O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5W 1E6
Clark, D. L., Krueger, A. B., Muller, B. F., Carlstrom, D.,
"Lip****z/Jung Forum", Audio Amateur, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 56-57 (0ct 1979)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1
(September 1985)
Clark, David L., "A/B/Xing DCC", Audio, APR 01 1992 v 76 n 4, p. 32
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.
30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of Internal
Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Downs, Hugh, "The High-Fidelity Trap", Modern HI-FI & Stereo Guide,
Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 66-67, Maco Publishing Co., New York (December 1972)
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and
Cognition, Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138,
(1995).
Fryer, P.A. "Loudspeaker Distortions: Can We Hear Them?", Hi-Fi
News and Record Review, Vol. 22, pp 51-56 (1977 June)
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol
65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of
Sound Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169
(1979)
Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio,
(April 1985)
Grusec, Ted, Thibault, Louis, Beaton, Richard, "Sensitive
Methodolgies for the Subjective Evaluation of High Quality Audio Coding
Systems", Presented at Audio Engineering Society UK DSP Conference 14-15
September 1992, available from Government of Canada Communcations
Research Center, 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 3Y7.
Hirsch, Julian, "Audio 101: Physical Laws and Subjective
Responses", Stereo Review, April 1996
Hudspeth, A. J., and Markin, Vladislav S., "The Ear's Gears:
Mechanoelectrical Transduction By Hair Cells", Physics Today, 47:22-8,
Feb 1994.
ITU-R BS.1116, "Methods for the Subjective Assessment of Small
Impairment in Audio Systems Including Multichannel Sound Systems",
Geneva, Switzerland (1994).
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29
No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the
Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the
Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion",
Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)",
Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper",
Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term
Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp.
53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128, (March 1997)
Pease, Bob, "What's All This Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Electronic
Design, (December 27, 1990) Recent Columns,
http://www.national.com/rap/
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?",
Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the
Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Schatzoff, Martin, "Design of Experiments in Computer Performance
Evaluation", IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 25 No. 6,
November 1981
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized,
Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society
Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Stallings, William M., "Mind Your p's and Alphas", Educational
Researcher, November 1995, pp. 19-20
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp.
431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections
in Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39, pp.
539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893
(H-5], 20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).


Why are you quoting books that you haven't read ?


I'm not.

I'm saying these are refernce books on the subject of ABX and DBT.

There are no comprable published works on the subject of why some other form
of testing is better than or equal to the efficacy obtained from blnd audio
testing.


  #6   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".


  #7   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by
Mikey.


  #8   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

Material of such an intellectual caliber that it cannot be understood by
Mikey.

Or you, otherwise you wouldn't say the idiotic things you do.


  #9   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
references, and that has been peer reviewed.

The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.
Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate
that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't
hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is no
scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of trained
listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
subtle differences in audio components.

If there is some research or published work contrary to the DBT protocols,
where is it?



  #10   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The mckelviphibian greeks


wrote in message
nk.net...



The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of

trained
listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
subtle differences in audio components.

False.
Pure lie.
A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the despicable
Mikey McKelvihpibian




  #11   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
references, and that has been peer reviewed.


Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.


Known by you personally? How many of these references have you even read?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can demonstrate
that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so that they don't
hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is
no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable
sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.


Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.


Then I guess you just answered your own question.



  #12   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The mckelviphibian greeks


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of

trained
listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to determine
subtle differences in audio components.

False.
Pure lie.
A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the
despicable
Mikey McKelvihpibian

Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just
stamping your foot and deny the truth.


  #13   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics, or
any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear subtle
differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the results of
people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted, complete with
references, and that has been peer reviewed.


Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.


Known by you personally?


A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone and
others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have only
anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly. There is
no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a reliable
sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment.


Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.


Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question, I want to know what if any
scientific validity the other side might claim to have. It seems reasonable
that if you are gong to deny the current scientific approach, there ought to
be something of equal or comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The other
side has.....?


  #14   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about
the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to
the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to
include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that
governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in the narrower
sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet
to be treated by science. These include history as well as the creations of
the human mind in the form of art, music, literature, religion, philosophy,
and cultural beliefs.


  #15   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?


sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more comical
than that.



..
..
..



  #16   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?


sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but not
without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got to
show you no stinking science."

You sneer, you call names, you deny, but you offer nothing that compares to
the work done to demonstrate the efficacy of DBT or how people hear.



  #17   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.


Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people in
their fields.


Known by you personally?


A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a
reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio
equipment.


Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.


Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,


I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim
to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current
scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable
scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?


Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


  #18   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in
the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too
complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as
the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature,
religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.


I must be interpreting this definition incorrectly - "covering rational
inquiry in areas that are mostly too complex as yet
to be treated by science". Is this definition suggesting that there might
be some areas, including music, that might be too complex to be understood
and explained by science? Heresy, I say!! Behead the infidel!!


  #19   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper


wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?


Define "scholarly".

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship in
the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly too
complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as well as
the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music, literature,
religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.

But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces it
weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.


  #20   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
in their fields.

Known by you personally?


A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with a
reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in audio
equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,


I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might claim
to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the current
scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or comprable
scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?


Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
listening is effective.




  #21   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship
in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are mostly
too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.

But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces
it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.

As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.


  #22   Report Post  
John Richards
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
k.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics, electronics,
or any related field that shows that it is possible to reliably hear
subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work that has the
results of people who can reliably hear subtle differences, sighted,
complete with references, and that has been peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
in their fields.

Known by you personally?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener so
that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with
a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to tell
them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be some
evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to
determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,


I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?


Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
listening is effective.


If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might
not be any. If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
then why should someone else do it for you? Personally, I don't give a
rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
satisfy your own doubts!

You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios.


  #23   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper


wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that

some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is

the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can

be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on scholarship
in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are

mostly
too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.

But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether

the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many ounces
it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.

As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.

As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
comparisons.
Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX and
high fidelity, noted.
General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.
Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.
Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.
Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
pleasure of others.
Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.
Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
useful instruments.
General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.
Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.


  #24   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
k.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics,
electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to
reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work
that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle
differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been
peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known people
in their fields.

Known by you personally?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener
so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up with
a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to
tell them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be
some evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way
to determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,

I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?

Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of sighted
listening is effective.


If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there might
not be any.


Bingo.

If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
then why should someone else do it for you?


I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational
humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that
has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted
listening.

Personally, I don't give a
rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
satisfy your own doubts!

I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there were
some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider,
i'd certainly be willing to consider it.

Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote?
Theobvious answer is because there is nothing.

You're tripe is boring me - onto my "blocked sender" list you go. Adios.



  #25   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that

some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is

the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can

be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
scholarship
in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are

mostly
too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether

the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
ounces
it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.

As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.

As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
comparisons.

An obvious lie.

Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
and
high fidelity, noted.


Another obvious lie.

General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.


Another obvious lie.

Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.


Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them
have you read?

Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.


Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.

Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
pleasure of others.


As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such
a weak mind.

Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.


There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.

Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
useful instruments.


Another denail of reality.

General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.


If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
function that way.

Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.

Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.




  #26   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



..... a system they enjoy listening through.


  #27   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?


sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
comical
than that.


Tommie didn't make the cut?


  #28   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?


sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't got
to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.


  #29   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be
possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
differnces, no change would occur.


  #30   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.




  #31   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.


Nothing about duh-Mikey is remotely related to real science. He and Arnii
traffic in some kind of traveling-medicine-show version of sicciccneneece.





  #32   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission



Clyde Slick said:

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any more
comical than that.


Tommie didn't make the cut?


Well, in my view Tommi is saner than Kroo**** and smarter than duh-Mikey.
Not much of a compliment, I'll admit, but I'd say Nousiane is not the worst
of the worst.






  #33   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey speak with forked tongue


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...



The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening of

trained
listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way to

determine
subtle differences in audio components.

False.
Pure lie.
A vile slander against audiophiles everywhere, perpetrated by the
despicable
Mikey McKelvihpibian

Typical of the responses that condemn ABX, no scientific validation, just
stamping your foot and deny the truth.

Mikey speak with forked tongue, as do all amphibians.


  #34   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that

some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is

the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can

be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
scholarship
in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are

mostly
too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history as
well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge whether

the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
ounces
it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.

As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
comparisons.


An obvious lie.

Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
and
high fidelity, noted.


Another obvious lie.

General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.


Another obvious lie.

Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.


Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of them
have you read?

Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.


Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.

Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
pleasure of others.


As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have such
a weak mind.

Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.


There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.

Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
useful instruments.


Another denail of reality.

General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.


If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
function that way.

Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.

Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.


JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT.
  #35   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
k.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
nk.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that
some other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".

Research done by experts in the field of psychoacoustics,
electronics, or any related field that shows that it is possible to
reliably hear subtle differences without proper bias controls. Work
that has the results of people who can reliably hear subtle
differences, sighted, complete with references, and that has been
peer reviewed.

Where did you come up with that definition?


The list I posted is contains work from some of the best known

people
in their fields.

Known by you personally?

A Couple I have met and heard speak, others I've talked to on the

phone
and others I either read or whos work I'm aware of.

How many of these references have you even read?

Irrelevant. What has the other side to offer?

Where is there any work by anybody of similar stature that can
demonstrate that ABX or any other form of DBT desensitizes listener
so that they don't hear things they would otherwise be able to.

It seems the people who are so vocal in their opposition to ABX

have
only anecdote, personal attacks, and the ability to argue

endlessly.
There is no scientific body or group trying to refute or come up

with
a reliable sighted protocol for determining subtle differences in
audio equipment.

Maybe the people you refer to don't feel they need "a reliable

sighted
protocol for determining subtle differences in audio equipment" to
tell them what they hear.


Then how can they be so sure that ABX or other forms of DBT are not
reliable.
If you assert that sighted listening is reliable, there ought ot be
some evidence.

If there is no evidence, then it's just denial and has no merit.

The fact is and has been for decades, that double blind listening

of
trained listeners is the most revealing, reliable and sensitive way
to determine subtle differences in audio components.

Then I guess you just answered your own question.


I didn't require an answer to that question,

I know, you're just stirring the pot.

I want to know what if any scientific validity the other side might
claim to have. It seems reasonable that if you are gong to deny the
current scientific approach, there ought to be something of equal or
comprable scientific effort to put in place of ABX.

The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?

Well let's erect an alter and give them praise, amen!


As expected, nothing to offer as proof theat ABX or any form of DBT is
invalid, and nothing to offer to demonstrate some sighted form of

sighted
listening is effective.


If you are looking for proof and can't find any, then I'd say there

might
not be any.


Bingo.

If there is proof but you just don't want to do the research,
then why should someone else do it for you?


I'm not asking for anybody to do research for me, I just thought rational
humans would want to have some basis for their beliefs in a procedure that
has been repeatedly cited as unreliable, as is the case for sighted
listening.

Personally, I don't give a
rat's ass if there is "proof" or not. Either way, the onus is on you to
satisfy your own doubts!

I don't have any doubts that sighted listening is flawed, but if there

were
some valid research that showed there might be some reason to reconsider,
i'd certainly be willing to consider it.

Why can't the anti DBT side provide something better than anecdote?
Theobvious answer is because there is nothing.

But it's not correct.




  #36   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:25:01 GMT, wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may be
possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so few
differnces, no change would occur.


Yes That's CORRECT
  #37   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mickey's big admission


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Poor Bug Eater. Adrift in the desert with no insect life within easy
grabbing
distance. His tiny brain is starting to dry up and crack apart.

The people[sic] endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts.
The other side has.....?

sneer

Mickey, you dolt, your "side" has you and Arnii. It doesn't get any
more comical
than that.


Not true at all. Your side has you, more sad than funny I suppose, but
not without humor, since your sides argument is essentially, "we don't
got to show you no stinking science."


you still haven't figure out that it's
NOT about science.

Oh, but I have, it's about denial of science.


It's not about science, neither accepted nor denied.
its just not about science.
its about enjoying the playback of music.
Its about enjoyment.



  #38   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default The case for ABX


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...


The people endorsing ABX have results to show for their efforts. The
other side has.....?



.... a system they enjoy listening through.

But it might be possible to have the smae sound for less money or it may
be possible to have a better one. Likely as not given that there are so
few differnces, no change would occur.


"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. "Better" is what you think
sounds best. I prefer whatever sounds best when I am listening for
enjoyment,
not what sounds best when I am engaged in a rigid test environment.


  #39   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mikey's toilet paper


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Where are the equally scholarly pieces of research that show that

some
other form of testing for audio differences have merit?

Define "scholarly".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship -

is
the
body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their

claims
about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make

them
known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship

can
be
taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of

scholarly
practice that governs the sciences. This article focuses on
scholarship
in the narrower sense, covering rational inquiry in areas that are

mostly
too complex as yet to be treated by science. These include history

as
well as the creations of the human mind in the form of art, music,
literature, religion, philosophy, and cultural beliefs.
But since you have a weak mind, how would you be able to judge

whether
the
article is true?
All you can do is put it on your bathroom scale, tell us how many
ounces
it weighs, and then use it for **** tickets.
As expected no offer of any sort of proof that any form of DBT is
invalid,
nor any offer of proof that sighted listening is a valid way to discern
subtle difference.

As expected, no offer of any sort of proof that ABX is valid for hifi
comparisons.


An obvious lie.

Faillure of Mikey to distinguish between industrial applications of ABX
and
high fidelity, noted.


Another obvious lie.

General failure of Mikey's weak brain, noted.


Another obvious lie.

Failure of Mikey to read cited materials, noted.


Something that you want to believe, but which is not true. How many of

them
have you read?

Fraudulent and obsessive nature of Mikey's claims, noted.


Denial of reality by yourself a matter of historical and legal record.

Noted, Mikey's obsessive occupation with destroying the free will and
pleasure of others.


As if such a thing were possible, espcecially since you believe I have

such
a weak mind.

Repetitious posting about discredited ABX ideas, noted.


There iare no discredited ABX ideas, only denials from fools.

Noted, failure to distinguish between crummy Radio Shack SPL meter and
useful instruments.


Another denail of reality.

General failure of Mikey to think on an adult level, noted.


If yours is supposed to be the adult standard, I'm very glad I don't
function that way.

Noted, Mikey has an unnatural interest in sheep as recreational animals.

Obligatory personal attacks in lieu of actual facts noted.

Borg manner of speaking noted.


  #40   Report Post  
Robert Morein
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brian agrees with me.


"Brian L. McCarty" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 22:35:29 GMT, wrote:


"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news

[snip]

JUST KILLFILE ME YOU IDIOT.


Well, Brian, you got one part right. Mikey is an idiot.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
f.S. Tons of cheapgear Cheapgear1 Pro Audio 2 February 23rd 12 03:25 AM
shipping Rode NT2000 in carrying case Charles Peterson Pro Audio 3 June 24th 05 05:29 PM
WANTED: 6 Space Effects Rack Case Geoley Pro Audio 0 December 29th 04 10:47 PM
FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V Nexxon Car Audio 0 April 30th 04 07:53 AM
Sherwood S-8000 Schematic and Case needed Jim Candela Vacuum Tubes 1 September 8th 03 09:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"