"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not
from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science,
but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the
music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non
scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis
that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has
strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I
suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse,
he is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position.

The anti-ABX position is in direct contradiction to reality.

Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge
to
the ABXers.

No, it is a denial of reality.

An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly?

A false statement, it works ecactly as intended.

I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis.

Go ahead and write one and then get it critiqued by the real experts and
prepare for another ass whuppin'.

I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the
flaws.

It is not flawed in any way that you have described. It does what it is
supposed to exactly as it is supposed to do it, that is whay it is
recognized as a valid test protocol.


Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable, but Arny Krueger
bungled the engineering, and the experiment design. The only hifi
companies that use it are known for mass market sound equipment of
dubioius quality.

So Rel, AKG, Mark Levinson, Crown, and Lexicon are mass market products of
dubious quality?



We understand that you have impaired hearing, and impaired mental
capacity.

How big was that telescope?

You were a "special" child, and now you are a very "special" adult. Stick
with Fisher-Price.
Stick your own Fisher Price.

wrote in message
ink.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable, but
Arny Krueger bungled the engineering, and the experiment
design. The only hifi companies that use it are known
for mass market sound equipment of dubioius quality.

So Rel, AKG, Mark Levinson, Crown, and Lexicon are mass
market products of dubious quality?


Note that the "dubious quality" epithet comes from a guy who
was just bragging about buying Altec computer speakers. ;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable, but
Arny Krueger bungled the engineering, and the experiment
design. The only hifi companies that use it are known
for mass market sound equipment of dubioius quality.

So Rel, AKG, Mark Levinson, Crown, and Lexicon are mass
market products of dubious quality?


Note that the "dubious quality" epithet comes from a guy who was just
bragging about buying Altec computer speakers. ;-)

Morein is not smart enough to notice his own hypocrisy.

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical question is telling, just
as the fact that he seldom gets the ones he answers correct.

wrote in message
ink.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable,
but Arny Krueger bungled the engineering, and the
experiment design. The only hifi companies that use it
are known for mass market sound equipment of dubioius
quality.

So Rel, AKG, Mark Levinson, Crown, and Lexicon are mass
market products of dubious quality?


Note that the "dubious quality" epithet comes from a guy
who was just bragging about buying Altec computer
speakers. ;-)
Morein is not smart enough to notice his own hypocrisy.

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical
question is telling, just as the fact that he seldom gets
the ones he answers correct.

You forgot the part where Morein surrounds his errors with
insults directed towards those who might try to straighten
him out.

Signal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

If Krueger were a wise man, or even just a man, he would not act like
a petulant child whenever there is the merest hint of analytical
overview regarding the failure of his holy testing regime to deliver
results... results even vaguely inline with normal observations and
expectations. He's not alone, merely the most nutty example (McMickey
is of course the most stupid). As I found out recently in RAHE there
are a number of individuals who get bent out of shape when ABX is
scrutinized.. as if you were questioning their manhood.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that Mirabel
is not very wise

Ludovic has proved himself over and over again to have fair and
pertinent questions - to which we have yet to see sensible answers.
Why is ABX routinely recommended for audiophiles to compare components
when there is zero published evidence that it works even
satisfactorily toward this goal? All ABX seems to do is reinforce the
idea that *everything* sounds the same. Even speakers. Obviously, this
is ********....

Signal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

If Krueger were a wise man, or even just a man, he would not act like
a petulant child whenever there is the merest hint of analytical
overview regarding the failure of his holy testing regime to deliver
results... results even vaguely inline with normal observations and
expectations. He's not alone, merely the most nutty example (McMickey
is of course the most stupid). As I found out recently in RAHE there
are a number of individuals who get bent out of shape when ABX is
scrutinized.. as if you were questioning their manhood.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that Mirabel
is not very wise

Ludovic has proved himself over and over again to have fair and
pertinent questions - to which we have yet to see sensible answers.
Why is ABX routinely recommended for audiophiles to compare components
when there is zero published evidence that it works even
satisfactorily toward this goal? All ABX seems to do is reinforce the
idea that *everything* sounds the same. Even speakers. Obviously, this
is ********....

Thank you for taking notice in such a clear and forceful way
of my core objection to ABX. (DBT is something else again). It is not
theory, it is not speculation it is simply that it has not been shown
to WORK and in fact what evidence there is strongly suggests that it
does not. Maybe it works in research, maybe it works on some industrial
tasks but does it work to distinguish components reproducing music so
that we can decide which one we like better?
I'm not an electronics man, physics and mathematics are not my forte.
But I know something about medical research: the breakthrough came
when we stopped putting forward grandiose theories and started asking
:"Does this work?" For some reason it is hard to convey this simple
idea to some (not the first=rankers but the Rec. audio crew) engineers.
Maybe you can do better.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable,
but Arny Krueger bungled the engineering, and the
experiment design. The only hifi companies that use it
are known for mass market sound equipment of dubioius
quality.

So Rel, AKG, Mark Levinson, Crown, and Lexicon are mass
market products of dubious quality?


Note that the "dubious quality" epithet comes from a guy
who was just bragging about buying Altec computer
speakers. ;-)
Morein is not smart enough to notice his own hypocrisy.

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical
question is telling, just as the fact that he seldom gets
the ones he answers correct.

You forgot the part where Morein surrounds his errors with insults
directed towards those who might try to straighten him out.
I didn't forget, I just figured it was self evident. The only people
defending him are the people as screwed up and confused about audio as he
is.

wrote in message
k.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical
question is telling, just as the fact that he seldom
gets the ones he answers correct.

You forgot the part where Morein surrounds his errors
with insults directed towards those who might try to
straighten him out.

I didn't forget, I just figured it was self evident. The
only people defending him are the people as screwed up
and confused about audio as he is.

Morein fits in well with other RAO technical eggspurts like
Middius and Sackman.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons, some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

FWIW, I accept things like bias and state of mind when hearing
differences, but I don't discard them, or, even worse, try to take
them away during listening.
That's why I think DBTs (or ABX or whatever version) are of little use
to the consumer, he or she will always listen sighted, with all
possible biases in action.

That assumes the consumer could never be interested in separating
effects (and claims) that are *imaginary* from those that are real.
Yet the popularity of consumer advocacy information sites and
organzations -- not to mention the authority still widely granted to
*science* -- suggests that some consumers *would* want a source
of such information, especially if the proper tests are
beyond the resources of most consumers to perform.

Need I make the analogy to health products AGAIN? Are controlled
tests 'of little use' to consumers simply because consumers
will always be subject to placebo effects when *they* use the
product?

"Night and day' difference can, and have, turned out to be
imaginary. Long term listening can, and has, succumbed to
psychological biases (in fact there's even one *especially*
associated with long-term listening -- acclimation effect,
which is likely the true explanation for 'burn in'differences.)



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:50:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Never? Perhaps, if someone is interested, and throws enough money at it,
ABX
will come to the point where it has an edge over whatever it is an
accomplished ear does to test a component. I give it that possibility.
That
doesn't mean it has to be used. There will still be people with the
ability
and desire to do it their own way. And when they speak here about what
they
like, and what they don't like, we should listen with respectful interest,
even if we disagree with their conclusions.

I think what bothers me about any form of A/B testing is that certain
aspects of audio evaluation are so subtle (yet real in the sense of
providing long term satisfaction) that they only become apparent after
weeks or even months; there's almost an element of osmosis at work.
I've had my current amp for months yet only now feel I'm getting a
handle on its sound---and yes, it does have a sound.

Does it have tubes? Is it an SET?

If not, then the sound is likely to disappear in a blind, level matched
comparison to a simialr piece of equipment. This has been shown many, many
times.

Those who truly
listen to their equipment will know what I mean; the rest will
continue to be happy with their JVC integrated--and I don't mean that
sarcastically since a JVC integrated is all most people need and
anything more would be a waste of money.

Becuase the JVC intergrtated, likely does sound the same as whatever you
listen to, when you can't see what it is.

But those who truly listen
know the subtleties of sound, the particular sheen certain amps give
brass, accurately or not; the rosin on the bow example that you
yourself cited; the depth and air only the best equipment can recreate
but which is imperative to any kind letting go and sinking into the
music.

If that's true it won't disappear when listening blind and level matched.

As I say, Arny's invention is admirable and useful in many
circumstances, but not for the dedicated audiophile contemplating an
important purchase.

Then once again, why is it so commonly used in everyday audio research?
Remember ABX doesn't require Arny's ABX box to accomplish a valid ABX
comparison.

Considering all the fine equipment that is manufactured under the Harman
corporate umbrella, and the tremendously good speakers from B&O, there is no
reason to suspect that ABX is invalid or masks difference. These products
are all subject to ABX and/or ABC/hr type comparisons at some point in their
development. DVD audio would not be possible without ABX. That proper
training for ABX or other DBT makes one MORE sensitive to differences is not
only demonstrable, but now axiomatic.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons, some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

FWIW, I accept things like bias and state of mind when hearing
differences, but I don't discard them, or, even worse, try to take
them away during listening.
That's why I think DBTs (or ABX or whatever version) are of little use
to the consumer, he or she will always listen sighted, with all
possible biases in action.

That assumes the consumer could never be interested in separating
effects (and claims) that are *imaginary* from those that are real.
Yet the popularity of consumer advocacy information sites and
organzations -- not to mention the authority still widely granted to
*science* -- suggests that some consumers *would* want a source
of such information, especially if the proper tests are
beyond the resources of most consumers to perform.

Need I make the analogy to health products AGAIN? Are controlled
tests 'of little use' to consumers simply because consumers
will always be subject to placebo effects when *they* use the
product?

"Night and day' difference can, and have, turned out to be
imaginary. Long term listening can, and has, succumbed to
psychological biases (in fact there's even one *especially*
associated with long-term listening -- acclimation effect,
which is likely the true explanation for 'burn in'differences.)

1) In order to avoid placebo effects we'd have to stop being human
beings of certain age, gender, heredity, exposure to and experience of
certain types of music, intellectual, social and cultural influences.
That applies
in every sphere of life including audio.
You may be an exception.
There exists a "consumer advocacy" medium with periodic reports on
audio. It is called "Consumer Reports".

Why would you want something else?
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S.Did you mean "acclimatisation"?


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:50:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Never? Perhaps, if someone is interested, and throws enough money at it,
ABX
will come to the point where it has an edge over whatever it is an
accomplished ear does to test a component. I give it that possibility.
That
doesn't mean it has to be used. There will still be people with the
ability
and desire to do it their own way. And when they speak here about what
they
like, and what they don't like, we should listen with respectful interest,
even if we disagree with their conclusions.

I think what bothers me about any form of A/B testing is that certain
aspects of audio evaluation are so subtle (yet real in the sense of
providing long term satisfaction) that they only become apparent after
weeks or even months; there's almost an element of osmosis at work.
I've had my current amp for months yet only now feel I'm getting a
handle on its sound---and yes, it does have a sound.

Does it have tubes? Is it an SET?

If not, then the sound is likely to disappear in a blind, level matched
comparison to a simialr piece of equipment. This has been shown many, many
times.

Those who truly
listen to their equipment will know what I mean; the rest will
continue to be happy with their JVC integrated--and I don't mean that
sarcastically since a JVC integrated is all most people need and
anything more would be a waste of money.

Becuase the JVC intergrtated, likely does sound the same as whatever you
listen to, when you can't see what it is.

But those who truly listen
know the subtleties of sound, the particular sheen certain amps give
brass, accurately or not; the rosin on the bow example that you
yourself cited; the depth and air only the best equipment can recreate
but which is imperative to any kind letting go and sinking into the
music.

If that's true it won't disappear when listening blind and level matched.

As I say, Arny's invention is admirable and useful in many
circumstances, but not for the dedicated audiophile contemplating an
important purchase.

Then once again, why is it so commonly used in everyday audio research?
Remember ABX doesn't require Arny's ABX box to accomplish a valid ABX
comparison.

Considering all the fine equipment that is manufactured under the Harman
corporate umbrella, and the tremendously good speakers from B&O, there is no
reason to suspect that ABX is invalid or masks difference. These products
are all subject to ABX and/or ABC/hr type comparisons at some point in their
development. DVD audio would not be possible without ABX. That proper
training for ABX or other DBT makes one MORE sensitive to differences is not
only demonstrable, but now axiomatic.

Axiomatic, Mike? A self evident truth? That the sun rises and sets,
that's a self evident truth. But that ABX makes one more sensitive to
differences? Nah.

For the rest, your perspective on audio frightens me as much as Arny's
does (and why not, since it's the same one). I wouldn't waste my time
arguing, anymore than if you wanted to argue about the rising and
falling of the sun. Easily discernable differences between SS
components exist, that's all I can say. And that is axiomatic.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:50:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Never? Perhaps, if someone is interested, and throws enough money at
it,
ABX
will come to the point where it has an edge over whatever it is an
accomplished ear does to test a component. I give it that possibility.
That
doesn't mean it has to be used. There will still be people with the
ability
and desire to do it their own way. And when they speak here about what
they
like, and what they don't like, we should listen with respectful
interest,
even if we disagree with their conclusions.

I think what bothers me about any form of A/B testing is that certain
aspects of audio evaluation are so subtle (yet real in the sense of
providing long term satisfaction) that they only become apparent after
weeks or even months; there's almost an element of osmosis at work.
I've had my current amp for months yet only now feel I'm getting a
handle on its sound---and yes, it does have a sound.

Does it have tubes? Is it an SET?

If not, then the sound is likely to disappear in a blind, level matched
comparison to a simialr piece of equipment. This has been shown many,
many
times.

Those who truly
listen to their equipment will know what I mean; the rest will
continue to be happy with their JVC integrated--and I don't mean that
sarcastically since a JVC integrated is all most people need and
anything more would be a waste of money.

Becuase the JVC intergrtated, likely does sound the same as whatever you
listen to, when you can't see what it is.

But those who truly listen
know the subtleties of sound, the particular sheen certain amps give
brass, accurately or not; the rosin on the bow example that you
yourself cited; the depth and air only the best equipment can recreate
but which is imperative to any kind letting go and sinking into the
music.

If that's true it won't disappear when listening blind and level matched.

As I say, Arny's invention is admirable and useful in many
circumstances, but not for the dedicated audiophile contemplating an
important purchase.

Then once again, why is it so commonly used in everyday audio research?
Remember ABX doesn't require Arny's ABX box to accomplish a valid ABX
comparison.

Considering all the fine equipment that is manufactured under the Harman
corporate umbrella, and the tremendously good speakers from B&O, there is
no
reason to suspect that ABX is invalid or masks difference. These
products
are all subject to ABX and/or ABC/hr type comparisons at some point in
their
development. DVD audio would not be possible without ABX. That proper
training for ABX or other DBT makes one MORE sensitive to differences is
not
only demonstrable, but now axiomatic.

Axiomatic, Mike? A self evident truth? That the sun rises and sets,
that's a self evident truth. But that ABX makes one more sensitive to
differences? Nah.

I can assume this an admission that you have read none of the research that
confirms this to be a fact then?


For the rest, your perspective on audio frightens me as much as Arny's
does (and why not, since it's the same one).

Why does reality frighten you? It's not so much a perspective as a simple
recognition of the reality of audio and human hearing.

I wouldn't waste my time
arguing, anymore than if you wanted to argue about the rising and
falling of the sun. Easily discernable differences between SS
components exist, that's all I can say. And that is axiomatic.

They may exist in some cases but they are not particularly common unless you
count sighted evaluations, which are known to be flawed and unreliable.

If the variations are small enough, under .1-.2 db across the audible range
and the amps are not driven into clipping there is little chance that you'll
be able to determine one form the other in a blind test. That's not an
opinion, that's what the previous use of blind tests confirm. As furthger
proof, comparison tests have been done with amps that were not within the
above criteria, IOW they had differences that COULD be detected in blind
comparison tests. The amp with the less flat response was then EQ'd in the
places where it deviated from flat and then the comparisons run again. With
the EQ in place, no reliable differnces could now be detected.

This is the way it is, it's not because I believe it. I should think this
kind of information would be greeted with cheers from audiophiles since they
can shop with more confidence that amps are going to sound transparent, and
the consumer is then free to concentrate on things like features and build
quality. They can save a ton of money they might have spent thinking they
were buying better sound and put it where it really counts, in better
quality speakers.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" emitted :

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

If Krueger were a wise man, or even just a man, he would not act like
a petulant child whenever there is the merest hint of analytical
overview regarding the failure of his holy testing regime to deliver
results... results even vaguely inline with normal observations and
expectations. He's not alone, merely the most nutty example (McMickey
is of course the most stupid). As I found out recently in RAHE there
are a number of individuals who get bent out of shape when ABX is
scrutinized.. as if you were questioning their manhood.

No, because they can't do it on the merits or on any research proving that
it is not effective and because it well know to be an accepted protocol by
audio researchers.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that Mirabel
is not very wise

Ludovic has proved himself over and over again to have fair and
pertinent questions - to which we have yet to see sensible answers.

Ludoivic has proved he chooses to remain blind toi the facts.

Why is ABX routinely recommended for audiophiles to compare components
when there is zero published evidence that it works even
satisfactorily toward this goal?

Why does he keep repreating the same lie?

All ABX seems to do is reinforce the
idea that *everything* sounds the same.

Nope,it just happens that many things do sound the same and this is abitter
pill toswallow for some people.

Even speakers. Obviously, this
is ********....

Yes it is. Speakers can very often be determined to sound different without
the added benefit of any form of DBT.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons,
some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent
ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

FWIW, I accept things like bias and state of mind when hearing
differences, but I don't discard them, or, even worse, try to take
them away during listening.
That's why I think DBTs (or ABX or whatever version) are of little use
to the consumer, he or she will always listen sighted, with all
possible biases in action.

That assumes the consumer could never be interested in separating
effects (and claims) that are *imaginary* from those that are real.
Yet the popularity of consumer advocacy information sites and
organzations -- not to mention the authority still widely granted to
*science* -- suggests that some consumers *would* want a source
of such information, especially if the proper tests are
beyond the resources of most consumers to perform.

Need I make the analogy to health products AGAIN? Are controlled
tests 'of little use' to consumers simply because consumers
will always be subject to placebo effects when *they* use the
product?

"Night and day' difference can, and have, turned out to be
imaginary. Long term listening can, and has, succumbed to
psychological biases (in fact there's even one *especially*
associated with long-term listening -- acclimation effect,
which is likely the true explanation for 'burn in'differences.)


True. There exists a well known pattern of imaginary differences reported by
sighted observers.
There also exists considerable evidence that ABX reduces the ability of
observers to discriminate. ABX, as it is commonly practiced, requires
listeners to discriminate within the confines of an environment that is not
completely at the discretion of the human subject.
So I say, fix ABX. Find a way to implement it that is not inimical to the
perception of differences. Unlike the setting of a courtroom, there is no
advantage to audiophiles of a testing system that is guaranteed to exclude
the imaginary at the expense of the real, or the real for the sake of the
exclusion of the imaginary.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

That assumes the consumer could never be interested in
separating effects (and claims) that are *imaginary*
from those that are real.

That's key to a lot of posturing around here about
preferences and just listening for pleasure, and
glorification of products that are merely placeboes.

Yet the popularity of consumer
advocacy information sites and organzations -- not to
mention the authority still widely granted to *science*
-- suggests that some consumers *would* want a source
of such information, especially if the proper tests are
beyond the resources of most consumers to perform.

It's not just *some* consumers, its many if not most of
them. Just because RAO has become a practical and
intellectual wasteland, doesn't mean that all audiophiles
are self-unaware and blissfully self-deceptive like Art
Sackman or Robert Morein.

Need I make the analogy to health products AGAIN? Are
controlled tests 'of little use' to consumers simply
because consumers will always be subject to placebo
effects when *they*
use the product?

The idea that consumers will all be controlled by placebo
effects is key to the usual mindless, anti-intellectual
posturing around here.

"Night and day' difference can, and have, turned out to
be imaginary.

Exactly, as the late Steve Zipser found out, much to his
chagrin.

Long term listening can, and has,
succumbed to psychological biases (in fact there's even
one *especially* associated with long-term listening --
acclimation effect, which is likely the true
explanation for 'burn
in'differences.)

Agreed. The idea that unaided human perception can be a
reliable standard in every case died in stages throughout
the last century. Of course, a lot of the anti-science
posturing trolls around here live in the previous century,
as evidenced by their fondness for vinyl, tubes, and other
forms and expressions of outdated technology.

True. There exists a well known pattern of imaginary
differences reported by sighted observers.

Many who are caught up in this problem throw a pity party
for themselves and pretend that their illusions are thought
by others to be delusions.

There also exists considerable evidence that ABX reduces
the ability of observers to discriminate.

There is actually not one shred of such evidence that is
reliable. It's all based on the false idea that sighted
listening is the one true form of audio evaluation.

ABX, as it is
commonly practiced, requires listeners to discriminate
within the confines of an environment that is not
completely at the discretion of the human subject.

If a person prefers blind listening, then the listening
environment is only completely at his discretion during a
blind test. The only people who are debilitated by sighted
listening are people who don't want to rely on evidence that
is gathered in an unbiased way. Many of the same people who
rail against bias controls also deny the validity of level
matching or time-synchronization.

So I say, fix ABX.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. ABX was developed to fix
sighted listening because even 25 years ago it was known
that sighted listening for small differences can be horribly
flawed.

So I say, fix sighted listening, and oh by the way:"Been
there, done that!".

Find a way to implement it that is not
inimical to the perception of differences.

ABX can fit that bill. ABC/hr can fit that bill. There are
other blind and semi-blind evaluation methodologies that fit
that bill. When applied correctly they generally tell the
same story - people who rely on sighted listening when small
differences are involved are spinning their wheels.

Unlike the
setting of a courtroom, there is no advantage to
audiophiles of a testing system that is guaranteed to
exclude the imaginary at the expense of the real, or the
real for the sake of the exclusion of the imaginary.

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small
differences are involved. Go for it!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small differences are
involved. Go for it!
But Ludovic has convincingly documented that ABX hides the differences
between decent equipment and some of the worst that was ever made. This
cannot be ignored. It is proof that your "contribution to audio" is fatally
flawed.

Fix it, or go down in history as a third-rate charlatan.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

[snip]
I feel like I just interviewed the Pope...
Anti Catholic prejudice noted.
Arny, your soul really does belong to Satan.
Even if you are a Lutheran, the Pope deserves your love and respect.

Let me remind you, Arny, that your sniveling slave, Mike McKelvy, was born a
Catholic. You owe it to someone of such subservient fealty and blind
obedience to be supportive of his religious heritage.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that your
complaints are completely hypocritical because you've
been doing the same thing to several people on this
conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your claw hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support, Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring waste of time. My
time, Mike's time, the time of anybody with a life.

Aw, c'mon, Arny. What is Mikey going to do with his time, except weigh
"scholarly papers" on his bathroom scale and use them as **** tickets?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
k.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical
question is telling, just as the fact that he seldom
gets the ones he answers correct.

You forgot the part where Morein surrounds his errors
with insults directed towards those who might try to
straighten him out.

I didn't forget, I just figured it was self evident. The
only people defending him are the people as screwed up
and confused about audio as he is.

Morein fits in well with other RAO technical eggspurts like Middius and
Sackman.
You fit in well with the other residents of Lake Wobegone.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:
"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons,
some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent
ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

FWIW, I accept things like bias and state of mind when hearing
differences, but I don't discard them, or, even worse, try to take
them away during listening.
That's why I think DBTs (or ABX or whatever version) are of little use
to the consumer, he or she will always listen sighted, with all
possible biases in action.

That assumes the consumer could never be interested in separating
effects (and claims) that are *imaginary* from those that are real.
Yet the popularity of consumer advocacy information sites and
organzations -- not to mention the authority still widely granted to
*science* -- suggests that some consumers *would* want a source
of such information, especially if the proper tests are
beyond the resources of most consumers to perform.

Need I make the analogy to health products AGAIN? Are controlled
tests 'of little use' to consumers simply because consumers
will always be subject to placebo effects when *they* use the
product?

"Night and day' difference can, and have, turned out to be
imaginary. Long term listening can, and has, succumbed to
psychological biases (in fact there's even one *especially*
associated with long-term listening -- acclimation effect,
which is likely the true explanation for 'burn in'differences.)


True. There exists a well known pattern of imaginary differences reported
by
sighted observers.
There also exists considerable evidence that ABX reduces the ability of
observers to discriminate.

Anecdotal evidence only. Or do you know of some reliable evidence from
somewhere?

ABX, as it is commonly practiced, requires
listeners to discriminate within the confines of an environment that is
not
completely at the discretion of the human subject.

No it doesn't.

So I say, fix ABX. Find a way to implement it that is not inimical to the
perception of differences.

Why then, do so many organizations use it routinely?

Unlike the setting of a courtroom, there is no
advantage to audiophiles of a testing system that is guaranteed to exclude
the imaginary at the expense of the real, or the real for the sake of the
exclusion of the imaginary.

You are not describing ABX, you are simply making things up.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small differences are
involved. Go for it!
But Ludovic has convincingly documented that ABX hides the differences
between decent equipment and some of the worst that was ever made. This
cannot be ignored. It is proof that your "contribution to audio" is
fatally flawed.

Fix it, or go down in history as a third-rate charlatan.

Talking to the mirror again?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.


I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit, but Paul is not the guy to do it
to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody else on
r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow.

Here's a concept for you Robert - a spade is a spade.

He has been a model of cordiality.

Other than his implicit insults to people's intelligence.

Please clarify, Arny. Did you challenge Paul's
intelligence

a. because you feel he has challenged yours?
b. because you genuinely suspect Paul has low
intelligence?

c. none of the above.

Except in very rare
circumstances, it is impossible to tell very much about
a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The
Best and the Brightest", he chronicles how some of the
most talented and brilliant member of this country's
elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense
is not as strong as it should be.

I said what I said, Robert and I'm sticking to it.
But for what purpose?

Please see "a spade is a spade".

Is your purpose
a. Verbal aggression, which you justifiy because you feel
you have been victim of same?
b. "Outing" what you honestly feel is Paul's low IQ ?

c. none of the above

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard
science, but he may have sensibilities and abilities of
an artistic, verbal, and proportional nature of which
you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we listen to
and care so much about is mostly composed by non
scientists, created by people who mostly don't care
about our argument at all.

That would make them a lot like me, because I don't care
a lot about the argument at hand, either.

Then why do you respond so violently to challenges to
your practice of ABX?

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your
antisocial tendencies.

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an
officer in all of the social organizations that I'm a
member of because I'm so antisocial.

Arny, I can't comment on what I don't see. If the rest of
your life is more balanced than what you exhibit here,
that's a good thing. I can see where organizations would
give you a job, because they need workers, while
retaining doubts about you on a social level. Perhaps you
think they like you.

While such a post might be excused
in the context of the gamesmanship that goes on with
other players here, it will not be understood in terms
of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

See "implicit insults to people's intelligence".

I'll await further explication by you.

enjoy!

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of
your thesis that he's nuts. While whether he's insane is
up in the air, Arny has strong antisocial tendencies. He
doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest retaining
Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

Just goes to show that Morein can't distinguish between
sanity and boredom with his endless know-nothing
posturing.

Obligatory arnyisms:
Thanks for admitting you're a nasty person.

No, just bored with dumbness.

Just goes to show Arny can't tell the difference between
nasty and nice.

If you want nice Robert, be nice - for more than 10 seconds.

Arny, you need to buy a clue about cordiality.

I do cordiality well, even with people who are total @$$holes. But enough
is enough. Spades are still spades.


Note: @rny'$ definition of an @$$hole i$ @nyone who might di$@gree with
him.
Hey! That sounds just like your definition.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


Note: @rny'$ definition of an @$$hole i$ @nyone who might di$@gree with
him.
Hey! That sounds just like your definition.

No, anyone who disagrees with Arny is likely to be normal.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small
differences are involved. Go for it!

But Ludovic has convincingly documented that ABX hides
the differences between decent equipment and some of the
worst that was ever made.

Ludovic wrote an article for one of Ed Dell's ragazines that
documented the idea of listening to both pieces of gear at
the same time, as a superior alternative to ABX.

Get it?

I really like that imagery, Ludovic. Makes me feel like Kirk Douglas in
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. RAO debate sounds so much more exciting
when you describe it. :-)

You're right that Arny's standard defence has been abuse and the
questioning of people's intelligence. I think a check of Google will
confirm that this tactic is not a pinch from Robert, but an old Arny
weapon. Indeed I seem to recall a post of his on aus.hi-fi that damned
us all in one breath as electronics cretins. So you and I ought not to
be downcast, neither rush off to have our I.Q.s rechecked. We may in
fact have received the highest kind of praise.

Incidentally, if I seem oddly absent in recent debates, let it be known
that my damn ISP sometimes doesn't download RAO messages for days at a
time. I'm posting this from Google Groups, and that's no fun. :-(

paul packer wrote:

I reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at home I've never
detected more than a subtle difference even between favourite
equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to listen to.

I reject the fact that the earth is round because when I go outside and look,
the earth is clearly flat.

You reject a blind testing protocol simply because it doesn't produce the
results you would expect (or hope for)? And what good is your "favourite
equipment" if you can only distinguish it by sight from equipment you can't
stand?

Nathan Stohborg said:

what good is your "favourite equipment" if you can only distinguish
it by sight from equipment you can't stand?

Horrors! People being inconsistent and emotional with their own money. What is
the world coming to? Somebody has to step up and save all those rich *******s
from themselves. Calling all 'borgs! Front and center!


..
..
..

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small
differences are involved. Go for it!

But Ludovic has convincingly documented that ABX hides
the differences between decent equipment and some of the
worst that was ever made.


Ludovic wrote an article for one of Ed Dell's ragazines that
documented the idea of listening to both pieces of gear at
the same time, as a superior alternative to ABX.

Get it?
______________________________________________

You said: " Ludovic wrote an article for one of Ed Dell's ragazines
that
documented the idea of listening to both pieces of gear at
the same time, as a superior alternative to ABX.

Get it?

Arny, your paranoia makes you see things. At the time I wrote my Audio
Electronics article (#5, 1998) I never as much as heard of ABX- so I
never mentioned it or you.
Through continuous nagging you're forcing me to republish and waste
time on replies etc. on what was intended for private use by those who
find it works for them.
While we're at it I (and the world) are still waiting for your
references to published articles showing that ABX does demonstrate
differences between audio components while playing music.
Surely, you're not relying on your clown-prince to bludgeon the
audiophiles into stupor with fake references copied from his Public
Library "audio" subject catalogue.
Ludovic Mirabel

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message
...


paul packer wrote:

I reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at home I've never
detected more than a subtle difference even between favourite
equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to listen to.

I reject the fact that the earth is round because when I go outside and
look,
the earth is clearly flat.

You reject a blind testing protocol simply because it doesn't produce the
results you would expect (or hope for)? And what good is your "favourite
equipment" if you can only distinguish it by sight from equipment you
can't
stand?


No, by sighted listening, not by sight,
Don't be duplicitous.

You reject a blind testing protocol simply because it doesn't produce the
results you would expect (or hope for)? And what good is your "favourite
equipment" if you can only distinguish it by sight from equipment you
can't
stand?


No, by sighted listening, not by sight,
Don't be duplicitous.

Yeah, exactly. Don't be dulpi...dupil....what he said. :-)

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:20:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
nk.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

The fact that he seldom answers a direct technical
question is telling, just as the fact that he seldom
gets the ones he answers correct.

You forgot the part where Morein surrounds his errors
with insults directed towards those who might try to
straighten him out.

I didn't forget, I just figured it was self evident. The
only people defending him are the people as screwed up
and confused about audio as he is.

Morein fits in well with other RAO technical eggspurts like
Middius and Sackman.

You two having fun agreeing with each other?

paul packer said:

You two having fun agreeing with each other?

This is what Kroo**** likes to call a "69 pity party".

Clyde Slick wrote:

No, by sighted listening, not by sight,
Don't be duplicitous.

"Sighted listening" means you know what equipment you're listening to, correct?
It seems that you're the one being duplicitous.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message


paul packer wrote:

I reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at
home I've never detected more than a subtle difference
even between favourite equipment and stuff I couldn't
stand to listen to.

I reject the fact that the earth is round because when I
go outside and look, the earth is clearly flat.

The trick is finding a place high enough, that overlooks
something that you know by other means is very flat (like
the ocean or a very large lake). The curvature and its
effects become noticable.

Well, we all know this, but the similarity of this
experience to blind testing is interesting. Blind testing is
like a place that is high enough to see past nearby object
clutter. The curvature that you are finally able to notice
is like the fact that a lot of audio gear sounds pretty much
the same, once you get the obvious sources of differences,
like level matching, out of the way.

You reject a blind testing protocol simply because it
doesn't produce the results you would expect (or hope
for)?

Exactly. It's all about the tyranny of the obvious, which
turns out to be irrelevant to the fundamental issue.

And what good is your "favourite equipment" if you
can only distinguish it by sight from equipment you can't
stand?

It's still good for bragging rights! ;-)

George Middius wrote:

Nathan Stohborg said:

what good is your "favourite equipment" if you can only distinguish
it by sight from equipment you can't stand?

Horrors! People being inconsistent and emotional with their own money. What is
the world coming to? Somebody has to step up and save all those rich *******s
from themselves. Calling all 'borgs! Front and center!


There are plenty of middle-class people that fall into the trap as well, but what
people do with their money is their own business. Some people insist on having
"the best", which usually is equated with brand notoriety. That in itself is not too
unreasonable. What is unreasonable is someone insisting that amplifiers A and B
sound vastly different when he can only detect the differences when he knows
what he is listening to. Can you not admit that aesthetics, price, brand
recognition, etc. are factors in sighted listening?

Nathan Stohlborg said:

Horrors! People being inconsistent and emotional with their own money. What
is the world coming to? Somebody has to step up and save all those rich
*******s from themselves. Calling all 'borgs! Front and center!

There are plenty of middle-class people that fall into the trap as well, but
what people do with their money is their own business.

If you can accept that truism, what is your problem, exactly?

What is unreasonable is someone insisting that amplifiers A and B
sound vastly different when he can only detect the differences when he knows
what he is listening to.

Why is it unreasonable? What difference can it possibly make to you?

Can you not admit that aesthetics, price, brand
recognition, etc. are factors in sighted listening?

I don't usually expend the effort to "admit" such elementary facts. Can you not
admit that audio systems are designed to produce sounds for humans to enjoy? Can
you not admit that without oxygen, all animals, including humans, would die?


..
..
..

Nathan Stohler wrote:
George Middius wrote:

Nathan Stohborg said:

what good is your "favourite equipment" if you can only distinguish
it by sight from equipment you can't stand?

Horrors! People being inconsistent and emotional with their own money. What is
the world coming to? Somebody has to step up and save all those rich *******s
from themselves. Calling all 'borgs! Front and center!


There are plenty of middle-class people that fall into the trap as well, but what
people do with their money is their own business. Some people insist on having
"the best", which usually is equated with brand notoriety. That in itself is not too
unreasonable. What is unreasonable is someone insisting that amplifiers A and B
sound vastly different when he can only detect the differences when he knows
what he is listening to. Can you not admit that aesthetics, price, brand
recognition, etc. are factors in sighted listening?

Many other things are factors in listening to music: your genetics,
your ethnicity, your hearing ability, your age, your intellectual
make-up, your exposure and experience of varying musical material
etc,.etc....
Someone ought to do something about that.
Ludovic Mirabel

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message
...


George Middius wrote:

Nathan Stohborg said:

what good is your "favourite equipment" if you can only distinguish
it by sight from equipment you can't stand?

Horrors! People being inconsistent and emotional with their own money.
What is
the world coming to? Somebody has to step up and save all those rich
*******s
from themselves. Calling all 'borgs! Front and center!


There are plenty of middle-class people that fall into the trap as well,
but what
people do with their money is their own business. Some people insist on
having
"the best", which usually is equated with brand notoriety. That in itself
is not too
unreasonable. What is unreasonable is someone insisting that amplifiers A
and B
sound vastly different when he can only detect the differences when he
knows
what he is listening to. Can you not admit that aesthetics, price, brand
recognition, etc. are factors in sighted listening?


It's a choice in purchasing decisions. but not in listening.
Many times I have been in a qundary that the best sounding piece was the
ugliest one.

"Nathan Stohler" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick wrote:

No, by sighted listening, not by sight,
Don't be duplicitous.

"Sighted listening" means you know what equipment you're listening to,
correct?

Correct! That's waht I said. It was not what you said.

It seems that you're the one being duplicitous.


It seems you forgot what you said.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Good reasons to abandon sighted listening when small
differences are involved. Go for it!

But Ludovic has convincingly documented that ABX hides
the differences between decent equipment and some of the
worst that was ever made.


Ludovic wrote an article for one of Ed Dell's ragazines that
documented the idea of listening to both pieces of gear at
the same time, as a superior alternative to ABX.

Get it?
______________________________________________

You said: " Ludovic wrote an article for one of Ed Dell's ragazines
that
documented the idea of listening to both pieces of gear at
the same time, as a superior alternative to ABX.

Get it?

Arny, your paranoia makes you see things. At the time I wrote my Audio
Electronics article (#5, 1998) I never as much as heard of ABX- so I
never mentioned it or you.
Through continuous nagging you're forcing me to republish and waste
time on replies etc. on what was intended for private use by those who
find it works for them.
While we're at it I (and the world) are still waiting for your
references to published articles showing that ABX does demonstrate
differences between audio components while playing music.

Why is it that you want to see evidence from the least revealing source for
doing a comparison?

You are unaware of why snippets or brief passages and pink noise are used?

Surely, you're not relying on your clown-prince to bludgeon the
audiophiles into stupor with fake references copied from his Public
Library "audio" subject catalogue.
Ludovic Mirabel

The clown prince is you Lude. You want to get information that you would
only reject if you found it.