One Variable ABX Testing Doesn't Account For

[[email protected]]

Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.

Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
would watch it.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
> electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
> audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
> screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
> the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
> order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
>
> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
> the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
> expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
> avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
> essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
> would watch it.

There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
casually.
I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.

As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
afaik.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 16 Jul 2005 19:28:43 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
>> electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
>> audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
>> screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
>> the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
>> order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
>>
>> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
>> the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
>> expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
>> avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
>> essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
>> would watch it.
>
>There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
>casually.
>I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.
>
>As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
>afaik.

You obviously haven't messed with ABX.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> wrote:

>> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even
>> with no electronics involved affects the human brain
>> tangibly.

Sometimes that's good, sometimes its not.

>> Orchestras which audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect
>> plays a given chart from behind a screen- can have their
>> judgment substantially afffected (or, rather, the judges
can,
>> because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
order
>> of performance and by the sheer number of candidates
>> auditioned.

If its a problem then its a problem for every listening test
that allows the same music to be played more than once. IOW
its a problem for both sighted and blind tests.

>> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate
and
>> critique the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the
lack
>> of such expectation.

So what are you saying - never do listening tests?

>> I had classes in high school (in cllege
>> I could and did avoid them) where we would see a movie
and
>> then be expected to write an essay on the film-which made
>> watching the film a job and affected how I would watch
it.

OK, so what do we carry away from this experience - should
we never look at anything critically?

> There's always a difference between listening critically
and
> listening casually.

Agreed.

> I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual
> listening mode.

It doesn't take a lot of discipline. I've done it. Trouble
is - no joy!

> As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that
requires
> that in ABX afaik.

Well you've got this problem that affects *any* listening
test - is it valid to compare two pieces of equipment using
two vastly different pieces of music?

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 19:28:43 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
> >> electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
> >> audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
> >> screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
> >> the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
> >> order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
> >>
> >> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
> >> the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
> >> expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
> >> avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
> >> essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
> >> would watch it.
> >
> >There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
> >casually.
> >I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.
> >
> >As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
> >afaik.
>
> You obviously haven't messed with ABX.

He's not talking PCABX Dave... there is a difference.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> Well you've got this problem that affects *any* listening
> test - is it valid to compare two pieces of equipment using
> two vastly different pieces of music?

Probably not... but I would leave it up to the subject to determine the
conditions that best suit the subject for max sensitivity. If repeat
passages are a problem for them...why force them?

You might feel that isn't the most sensitive condition while another
subject might want to most simulate casual listening which would
preclude repeat passages and rapid switching.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> dave weil wrote:
>> On 16 Jul 2005 19:28:43 -0700, "ScottW"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again
even
>>>> with no electronics involved affects the human brain
>>>> tangibly. Orchestras which audition "blind"-i.e. the
>>>> prospect plays a given chart from behind a screen- can
have
>>>> their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather, the
>>>> judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional
>>>> being) by order of performance and by the sheer number
of
>>>> candidates auditioned.
>>>>
>>>> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate
and
>>>> critique the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis
the
>>>> lack of such expectation. I had classes in high school
(in
>>>> cllege I could and did avoid them) where we would see a
>>>> movie and then be expected to write an essay on the
>>>> film-which made watching the film a job and affected
how I
>>>> would watch it.
>>>
>>> There's always a difference between listening critically
and
>>> listening casually.
>>> I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual
>>> listening mode.
>>>
>>> As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that
requires
>>> that in ABX afaik.
>>
>> You obviously haven't messed with ABX.
>
> He's not talking PCABX Dave... there is a difference.

Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and technically
correct than ABX.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> dave weil wrote:
>>> On 16 Jul 2005 19:28:43 -0700, "ScottW"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again
> even
>>>>> with no electronics involved affects the human brain
>>>>> tangibly. Orchestras which audition "blind"-i.e. the
>>>>> prospect plays a given chart from behind a screen- can
> have
>>>>> their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather, the
>>>>> judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional
>>>>> being) by order of performance and by the sheer number
> of
>>>>> candidates auditioned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate
> and
>>>>> critique the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis
> the
>>>>> lack of such expectation. I had classes in high school
> (in
>>>>> cllege I could and did avoid them) where we would see a
>>>>> movie and then be expected to write an essay on the
>>>>> film-which made watching the film a job and affected
> how I
>>>>> would watch it.
>>>>
>>>> There's always a difference between listening critically
> and
>>>> listening casually.
>>>> I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual
>>>> listening mode.
>>>>
>>>> As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that
> requires
>>>> that in ABX afaik.
>>>
>>> You obviously haven't messed with ABX.
>>
>> He's not talking PCABX Dave... there is a difference.
>
> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and technically
> correct than ABX.

Do I have complete freedom of source material selection with
PCABX?

If you were saying you were high when you developped it..
I won't argue that point.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and technically
>> correct than ABX.

> Do I have complete freedom of source material selection
with
> PCABX?

For most practical purposes, yes.

> If you were saying you were high when you developped it..

I've never developped anything.

> I won't argue that point.

Unlike the people you seem to be most familiar with Scott, I
never get high. I've never been drunk, never used an illegal
drug, etc.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
> > electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
> > audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
> > screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
> > the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
> > order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
> >
> > Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
> > the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
> > expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
> > avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
> > essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
> > would watch it.
>
> There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
> casually.
> I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.
>
> As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
> afaik.
>
> ScottW


Actually, ABX is all about repeat passages. Without repetitions, and
a lot of them, ABX'ing is inconclusive. Think of taking a true false
test. On every question you have a 50/50 chance of guessing "right".
So you have to do large number of questions (repetitions) to remove the
lucky guess factor. In audio ABX'ing twenty rep's would not be too
few. Yes, this is a significant limitation, but it is necessary to
remove random chance.

good listening

Ray

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
[snip]
> >
> > Unlike the people you seem to be most familiar with Scott, I
> > never get high. I've never been drunk, never used an illegal
> > drug, etc.
>
> It does say a lot about you. Can't say I find someone who has
> complied with all the rules their whole life is a very well rounded
> individual.
>
> ScottW
>
Like most hypocrites, Arny harbors multiple contradictions in his soul. We
can't know what he really is about.
We do know that he projects a lot of hate and undesirable qualities onto his
doctrinal opponents. People who stand for goodness, truth, and beauty seem
to irritate him. As "The Shadow" says, "Who knows what evil lurks in the
hearts of men?"

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and
technically
>>>> correct than ABX.

>>> Do I have complete freedom of source material selection
with
>>> PCABX?

>> For most practical purposes, yes.

> BS.. if I had the freedom to capture my own samples for
trial
> I would have access to the components under trial... and
then
> I would have to question why bother with the added
variables
> of PCABX... when I could just as well have ABX?

You mean you object to the added variables like superior
listener training, portability of tests, and easy time synch
for comparing players?


> It does say a lot about you. Can't say I find someone
who
> has complied with all the rules their whole life is a very
> well rounded individual.

Interesting, but where did I say I complied with *all* the
rules?

I just never wanted to destroy my brain for a cheap thrill.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message


> We do know that he projects a lot of hate and undesirable
> qualities onto his doctrinal opponents. >


Yes Bob, I projected your failed academic career, the
obsession with Brian, and your rejection by the Supreme
Court of the United States (at your daddy's expense) onto
you.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Actually, ABX is all about repeat passages.

Agreed. I remember how thrilled we were when CD players came
out with the phrase repeat facility.

> Without repetitions, and a lot of them, ABX'ing is
inconclusive.

Overly restrictive.

Without repetitions, and a lot of them, subjective testing
for small differences can be inconclusive.

The only reason the classic golden ear tests don't require a
lot of repetitions is that they aren't based on just
listening.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
> > > electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
> > > audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
> > > screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
> > > the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
> > > order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
> > >
> > > Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
> > > the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
> > > expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
> > > avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
> > > essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
> > > would watch it.
> >
> > There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
> > casually.
> > I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.
> >
> > As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
> > afaik.
> >
> > ScottW
>
>
> Actually, ABX is all about repeat passages. Without repetitions, and
> a lot of them, ABX'ing is inconclusive. Think of taking a true false
> test. On every question you have a 50/50 chance of guessing "right".

No one says every trial has to be of exactly the same passage.

Sure it introduces variables but if the subject feels repitition is
hypnotic...why not?

ScottW

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and
> technically
> >>>> correct than ABX.
>
> >>> Do I have complete freedom of source material selection
> with
> >>> PCABX?
>
> >> For most practical purposes, yes.
>
> > BS.. if I had the freedom to capture my own samples for
> trial
> > I would have access to the components under trial... and
> then
> > I would have to question why bother with the added
> variables
> > of PCABX... when I could just as well have ABX?
>
> You mean you object to the added variables like superior
> listener training, portability of tests, and easy time synch
> for comparing players?

and multiple layers of potentially masking reproduction.

>
>
> > It does say a lot about you. Can't say I find someone
> who
> > has complied with all the rules their whole life is a very
> > well rounded individual.
>
> Interesting, but where did I say I complied with *all* the
> rules?

What other rules could you break locked in the closet of your
youth?.... oh.... those rules. Sorry.
>
> I just never wanted to destroy my brain for a cheap thrill.

is destroying evil so bad?

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>> news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and
technically
>>>>>> correct than ABX.
>>
>>>>> Do I have complete freedom of source material
selection
>>>>> with PCABX?
>>
>>>> For most practical purposes, yes.
>>
>>> BS.. if I had the freedom to capture my own samples for
>>> trial I would have access to the components under
trial...
>>> and then I would have to question why bother with the
added
>>> variables of PCABX... when I could just as well have
ABX?
>>
>> You mean you object to the added variables like superior
>> listener training, portability of tests, and easy time
synch
>> for comparing players?

> and multiple layers of potentially masking reproduction.

Like many variables, the signifcance of this variable can
and has been assessed.

>>> It does say a lot about you. Can't say I find someone
who
>>> has complied with all the rules their whole life is a
very
>>> well rounded individual.
>>
>> Interesting, but where did I say I complied with *all*
the
>> rules?

> What other rules could you break locked in the closet of
your
> youth?.... oh.... those rules. Sorry.

>> I just never wanted to destroy my brain for a cheap
thrill.

> is destroying evil so bad?

OK Scott, if you feel your brain is evil, do what you have
to do...

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>
> oups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >>>> news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and
> technically
> >>>>>> correct than ABX.
> >>
> >>>>> Do I have complete freedom of source material
> selection
> >>>>> with PCABX?
> >>
> >>>> For most practical purposes, yes.
> >>
> >>> BS.. if I had the freedom to capture my own samples for
> >>> trial I would have access to the components under
> trial...
> >>> and then I would have to question why bother with the
> added
> >>> variables of PCABX... when I could just as well have
> ABX?
> >>
> >> You mean you object to the added variables like superior
> >> listener training, portability of tests, and easy time
> synch
> >> for comparing players?
>
> > and multiple layers of potentially masking reproduction.
>
> Like many variables, the signifcance of this variable can
> and has been assessed.

and found significant and uncontrollable for the typical user
rendering PCABX permanently flawed.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > We do know that he projects a lot of hate and undesirable
> > qualities onto his doctrinal opponents. >
>
>
> Yes Bob, I projected your failed academic career, the
> obsession with Brian, and your rejection by the Supreme
> Court of the United States (at your daddy's expense) onto
> you.
>
You haven't answered my question.

Do you miss Nate?

[[email protected]]

Arny Said:


Cal said:

>> I had classes in high school (in cllege
>> I could and did avoid them) where we would see a movie
and
>> then be expected to write an essay on the film-which made
>> watching the film a job and affected how I would watch


it.

OK, so what do we carry away from this experience - should
we never look at anything critically?


Doesn't that sound like a reason to use something other than musical
passages to use for ABX? But then that would make the other
anti-ABXers angry too. If you use music, then you alledgedly kill the
desire to liste to it. If you listen to pink noise or other forms of
test tones, then you are killing your mind. Apparently, doing any sort
of critical listening is harmful to the anti-ABX guys. Their lives are
so very fragile, it's a shame they don't have a clue how many ways
their lives have been positively impacted by sorm form of ABX, audio
and other wise.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein said:

>Like most hypocrites, Arny harbors multiple contradictions in his soul. We
>can't know what he really is about.

Yet you constantly make up stuff implying that you do.

>We do know that he projects a lot of hate and undesirable qualities onto his
>doctrinal opponents.

We know that? Whence comes this knowldege? I think you're making stuff
up again.


>People who stand for goodness, truth, and beauty seem
>to irritate him.

That would make you less than a gnat to him.

> As "The Shadow" says, "Who knows what evil lurks in the
>hearts of men?"

It would appear there's plenty in yours. Goes along with the big empty
spots in your brain. How big was that telescope?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote
in
>> message
>>
>>
>>> We do know that he projects a lot of hate and
undesirable
>>> qualities onto his doctrinal opponents. >
>>
>>
>> Yes Bob, I projected your failed academic career, the
>> obsession with Brian, and your rejection by the Supreme
>> Court of the United States (at your daddy's expense) onto
>> you.
>>
> You haven't answered my question.
>
> Do you miss Nate?

Of course.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
oups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:F4yCe.46793$up5.5952@lakeread02
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and
>>>>>>>> technically correct than ABX.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Do I have complete freedom of source material
selection
>>>>>>> with PCABX?
>>>>
>>>>>> For most practical purposes, yes.
>>>>
>>>>> BS.. if I had the freedom to capture my own samples
for
>>>>> trial I would have access to the components under
trial...
>>>>> and then I would have to question why bother with the
added
>>>>> variables of PCABX... when I could just as well have
ABX?
>>>>
>>>> You mean you object to the added variables like
superior
>>>> listener training, portability of tests, and easy time
synch
>>>> for comparing players?
>>
>>> and multiple layers of potentially masking
reproduction.
>>
>> Like many variables, the signifcance of this variable can
>> and has been assessed.
>
> and found significant and uncontrollable for the typical
user
> rendering PCABX permanently flawed.

The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty words
by persons of lesser capabilities.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>>>>>> trial I would have access to the components under
> trial...
>>>>>> and then I would have to question why bother with the
> added
>>>>>> variables of PCABX... when I could just as well have
> ABX?
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean you object to the added variables like
> superior
>>>>> listener training, portability of tests, and easy time
> synch
>>>>> for comparing players?
>>>
>>>> and multiple layers of potentially masking
> reproduction.
>>>
>>> Like many variables, the signifcance of this variable can
>>> and has been assessed.
>>
>> and found significant and uncontrollable for the typical
> user
>> rendering PCABX permanently flawed.
>
> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty words
> by persons of lesser capabilities.


Inability to provide a sound technical rebuttal...noted.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Arny,

Have you ever read a book on sampling techniques?

If you have, I would like to know its title.

ray

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:RVECe.47180$up5.23409@lakeread02
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
oups.com
>>>>>>> trial I would have access to the components under
>>>>>>> trial... and then I would have to question why
bother
>>>>>>> with the added variables of PCABX... when I could
just
>>>>>>> as well have ABX?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean you object to the added variables like
superior
>>>>>> listener training, portability of tests, and easy
time
>>>>>> synch for comparing players?

>>>>> and multiple layers of potentially masking
reproduction.

>>>> Like many variables, the signifcance of this variable
can
>>>> and has been assessed.

>>> and found significant and uncontrollable for the
typical
>>> user rendering PCABX permanently flawed.

>> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty
words
>> by persons of lesser capabilities.
>
>
> Inability to provide a sound technical rebuttal...noted.

Scott, where is the sound technical statement that I'm
supposed to rebut?

You've obviously been listening to Middius and his acolyte
Art way too much.

Well that, and your fondness for getting high at the expense
of your brain cells.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny,
>
> Have you ever read a book on sampling techniques?
>
> If you have, I would like to know its title.

It's not my day for posting the titles of every book on
statistics and subjective testing that I've read.

Here's an ABX reading list:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm

[Fella]

wrote:

> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
> electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly.

Yes. There is also a learning affect of some sorts. Say you are ABX:ing
two amps (been there, done that) You learn to hear that subtle detail
from the better sample, and when you hear the lesser sample you
attribute the same effect that you've learned to hear to that lesser
sample also. This happens if you repeat the same passage, sample with
both sources. Thus you end up thinking that both sources sound the same.

I have had real-life incidents where I put in some new, better equipment
into my system and play a familiar CD. What the...? I start to hear
*new* sounds, things I've never heard before in a CD I've been listening
for years. Then I start wondering. Did the old equipment really
completely hide those new sounds I hear with the new? So I put the old
unit back, make the system as it was before that is, and to my surprise,
I can hear the same "new" sounds with the old system also. Why? It's
simply because I _*learned*_ to hear them, notice them with the new unit
in place.

There is also a "snowing affect". Just as when it snows long enough on
an uneven surface it smooths out, all the connections, relays, the
banana plugs, etc, smooths out the subtle differences between the two
sources.

Also, this applies especially for amps, the relaxed and "fixed" volume
and level matching does not take into account the real world strains
that amps go through when listening to music. It's like putting two
runners up for a reace and saying that you can only run at a given speed
and only a given distance that both are comfortable with. It just
doesn't make any sense.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>> Hearing the same musical passage over and over again
even
>> with no electronics involved affects the human brain
tangibly.

> Yes. There is also a learning affect of some sorts. Say
you
> are ABX:ing two amps (been there, done that) You learn to
hear
> that subtle detail from the better sample, and when you
hear
> the lesser sample you attribute the same effect that
you've
> learned to hear to that lesser sample also.

Somebody has a vivid imagination.

Somebody has very little experience with carefully-done
listening evaluations.

When differences are small, they aren't a matter of presence
of subtle detail versus absence of subtle detail. The subtle
details are present in both, but they differ in character
from either other.

> This happens if
> you repeat the same passage, sample with both sources.
Thus
> you end up thinking that both sources sound the same.

Actually, if the two sources sound different, the repeated
listening sessions combined with good test scores do an
outstanding job of convincing the listener that the
difference exists.

When differences are very small but audible it becomes hard
to characterise what the difference is, exactly.
Nevertheless the difference can be detected reliably.

> I have had real-life incidents where I put in some new,
better
> equipment into my system and play a familiar CD. What
the...?
> I start to hear *new* sounds, things I've never heard
before
> in a CD I've been listening for years.

The usual effects of the excitement of installing new
equipment. Been there done that.

> Then I start wondering.
> Did the old equipment really completely hide those new
sounds
> I hear with the new? So I put the old unit back, make the
> system as it was before that is, and to my surprise, I can
> hear the same "new" sounds with the old system also. Why?
It's
> simply because I _*learned*_ to hear them, notice them
with
> the new unit in place.

More likely - the perceptions that were stimulated by the
excitement of getting new equipment were found to have been
possible all the time.

The fallacy in Fella little bogus theory is that when you
learn how to hear things, you become more sensitive to their
absence.

Besides, the problem Fella hypothesizes, would afflict any
listening test that involved repeated comparisons, sighted
or blind.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> When differences are small, they aren't a matter of presence
> of subtle detail versus absence of subtle detail. The subtle
> details are present in both, but they differ in character
> from either other.

I agree, to some extent. There is nothing preventing the learning of
that subtle differences in character and attributing that what is
learned back and forth though.

ABX, in particular, is about if a given person is equipped with keen
enough perceptions, a solid memory and patience and self-discipline *to
be able to* go thorugh such a test, rather than whether or not cd
players, amps, etc sound the same.


>
>
> Actually, if the two sources sound different, the repeated
> listening sessions combined with good test scores do an
> outstanding job of convincing the listener that the
> difference exists.


Differences exist if you hear them, simple. No blind tests are needed to
prove anything.

>
> When differences are very small but audible it becomes hard
> to characterise what the difference is, exactly.

Agreed. This is another source angst and anxiety in the test situation.

> Nevertheless the difference can be detected reliably.


Perhaps if one is very disciplined, etc, or a borg, yes.

>
>
> The usual effects of the excitement of installing new
> equipment. Been there done that.
>
>

That's just a simple cop-out, a cheap cliche.


> Besides, the problem Fella hypothesizes, would afflict any
> listening test that involved repeated comparisons, sighted
> or blind.
>

And who says it doesn't?

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>
>> When differences are small, they aren't a matter of
presence
>> of subtle detail versus absence of subtle detail. The
subtle
>> details are present in both, but they differ in character
>> from either other.
>
> I agree, to some extent. There is nothing preventing the
> learning of that subtle differences in character and
> attributing that what is learned back and forth though.
>
> ABX, in particular, is about if a given person is equipped
> with keen enough perceptions, a solid memory and patience
and
> self-discipline *to be able to* go thorugh such a test,
rather
> than whether or not cd players, amps, etc sound the same.

Not at all.

>> Actually, if the two sources sound different, the
repeated
>> listening sessions combined with good test scores do an
>> outstanding job of convincing the listener that the
>> difference exists.

> Differences exist if you hear them, simple. No blind tests
are
> needed to prove anything.

That would be your anti-scientific religious faith, Fella.

>> When differences are very small but audible it becomes
hard
>> to characterise what the difference is, exactly.

> Agreed. This is another source angst and anxiety in the
test
> situation.

The solution to anxienty and angst is well know - training.

>> Nevertheless the difference can be detected reliably.

> Perhaps if one is very disciplined, etc, or a borg, yes.

Whats wrong with being disciplined?

>> The usual effects of the excitement of installing new
>> equipment. Been there done that.

> That's just a simple cop-out, a cheap cliche.

Its just a reflection on a lifetime's experiences with
audio.

>> Besides, the problem Fella hypothesizes, would afflict
any
>> listening test that involved repeated comparisons,
sighted
>> or blind.

> And who says it doesn't?

Not me.

[George Middius]

PedophileBorg admitted:

>> Do you miss Nate?

>Of course.

How sad. With Nate buried, whose dead body do you now fantasize about fondling,
Arnii?

[George Middius]

The Big **** dodges and lies.

>> Have you ever read a book on sampling techniques?
>> If you have, I would like to know its title.

>It's not my day for posting the titles of every book on
>statistics and subjective testing that I've read.

Translation: No.

Turdborg may have read the preface or the introduction of such a book, but it's
an absolute certainty he didn't read the substantial part of one. Krooger is too
krazy to understand a technical book anyway. Have you ever seen his blithering
idiocy about ohms and volts? He can't remember which is which.

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty
> words
> >> by persons of lesser capabilities.
> >
> >
> > Inability to provide a sound technical rebuttal...noted.
>
> Scott, where is the sound technical statement that I'm
> supposed to rebut?

Inability to even comprehend the flaws of PCABX are noted.


>
> You've obviously been listening to Middius and his acolyte
> Art way too much.
>
> Well that, and your fondness for getting high at the expense
> of your brain cells.

Complete lack of truthfulness is noted.

Hey... McKelvy... what do you think of Arny now... blatantly lying in
a weak attempt to discredit. Is that worthy of your admiration?

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty
>> words
>>>> by persons of lesser capabilities.
>>>
>>>
>>> Inability to provide a sound technical rebuttal...noted.
>>
>> Scott, where is the sound technical statement that I'm
>> supposed to rebut?

> Inability to even comprehend the flaws of PCABX are noted.

And this iron-clad list of purported flaws is where?

>> You've obviously been listening to Middius and his
acolyte
>> Art way too much.

<Scotty won't deny his alliances with the forces of idiocy
and darkness around here>

>> Well that, and your fondness for getting high at the
expense
>> of your brain cells.

> Complete lack of truthfulness is noted.

So Scotty you were being truthful when you accused me of
being high when I invented PCABX?

LOL!

> Hey... McKelvy... what do you think of Arny now...
blatantly
> lying in a weak attempt to discredit. Is that worthy of
your
> admiration?

I seek the truth, not admiration.

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty
> >> words
> >>>> by persons of lesser capabilities.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Inability to provide a sound technical rebuttal...noted.
> >>
> >> Scott, where is the sound technical statement that I'm
> >> supposed to rebut?
>
> > Inability to even comprehend the flaws of PCABX are noted.
>
> And this iron-clad list of purported flaws is where?

Don't be dense.. you know the playback system is potentially
masking.

>
> >> You've obviously been listening to Middius and his
> acolyte
> >> Art way too much.
>
> <Scotty won't deny his alliances with the forces of idiocy
> and darkness around here>

I am not your ally.

>
> >> Well that, and your fondness for getting high at the
> expense
> >> of your brain cells.
>
> > Complete lack of truthfulness is noted.
>
> So Scotty you were being truthful when you accused me of
> being high when I invented PCABX?


Accusations? Hardly.. just a mere suggestion of the possibility as a
justification of what you were thinking at the
time.

>
> LOL!
>
> > Hey... McKelvy... what do you think of Arny now...
> blatantly
> > lying in a weak attempt to discredit. Is that worthy of
> your
> > admiration?
>
> I seek the truth, not admiration.

Your behavior strongly suggests otherwise.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>>
oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The only such assesments I've seen were made of empty
>>>> words
>>>>>> by persons of lesser capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Inability to provide a sound technical
rebuttal...noted.
>>>>
>>>> Scott, where is the sound technical statement that I'm
>>>> supposed to rebut?
>>
>>> Inability to even comprehend the flaws of PCABX are
noted.
>>
>> And this iron-clad list of purported flaws is where?
>
> Don't be dense.. you know the playback system is
potentially
> masking.

....so assuredly that I show people how to assess that
variable.

>>>> You've obviously been listening to Middius and his
acolyte
>>>> Art way too much.
>
>> <Scotty won't deny his alliances with the forces of
idiocy
>> and darkness around here>

> I am not your ally.

Not to your credit, Scotty.

>>>> Well that, and your fondness for getting high at the >
expense
>>>> of your brain cells.
>>
>>> Complete lack of truthfulness is noted.
>>
>> So Scotty you were being truthful when you accused me of
>> being high when I invented PCABX?

> Accusations? Hardly.. just a mere suggestion of the
> possibility as a justification of what you were thinking
at the
> time.

Thanks for showing that you know how to back-pedal when
caught in one of your many lies, Scotty.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> dave weil wrote:

>>>
>>> You obviously haven't messed with ABX.
>>
>> He's not talking PCABX Dave... there is a difference.
>
> Right, PCABX is far more highly developed and technically
> correct than ABX.
>
>

"at least" it has more letters.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unlike the people you seem to be most familiar with Scott, I
> never get high. I've never been drunk, never used an illegal
> drug, etc.
>


Are you still a virgin?



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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Hearing the same musical passage over and over again even with no
>> > electronics involved affects the human brain tangibly. Orchestras which
>> > audition "blind"-i.e. the prospect plays a given chart from behind a
>> > screen- can have their judgment substantially afffected (or, rather,
>> > the judges can, because the orchestra itself is a fictional being) by
>> > order of performance and by the sheer number of candidates auditioned.
>> >
>> > Also, being told up front you will be expected to rate and critique
>> > the work affects how one hears it vis-a-vis the lack of such
>> > expectation. I had classes in high school (in cllege I could and did
>> > avoid them) where we would see a movie and then be expected to write an
>> > essay on the film-which made watching the film a job and affected how I
>> > would watch it.
>>
>> There's always a difference between listening critically and listening
>> casually.
>> I suppose a very disciplined person could ABX in casual listening mode.
>>
>> As far as repeat passages... there is nothing that requires that in ABX
>> afaik.
>>
>> ScottW
>
>
> Actually, ABX is all about repeat passages. Without repetitions, and
> a lot of them, ABX'ing is inconclusive. Think of taking a true false
> test. On every question you have a 50/50 chance of guessing "right".
> So you have to do large number of questions (repetitions) to remove the
> lucky guess factor. In audio ABX'ing twenty rep's would not be too
> few. Yes, this is a significant limitation, but it is necessary to
> remove random chance.
>
> good listening
>

but bad headache.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> I just never wanted to destroy my brain for a cheap thrill.
>
>

So, why did you destroy your brain?



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I seek the truth, not admiration.
>

The one thing you should seek is help from a mental health professional.



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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
(See his posting for the omitted text.

> Actually, if the two sources sound different, the repeated
> listening sessions combined with good test scores do an
> outstanding job of convincing the listener that the
> difference exists.
>
> When differences are very small but audible it becomes hard
> to characterise what the difference is, exactly.
> Nevertheless the difference can be detected reliably.
>
Where? When? By you? Give proper detailed reference to one single ABX
component comparison test report with a statistically valid,
representattive number of subjects (start with 15 just a few more than
you and your friends)), selected to be representative for age, gender,
musical exposure and experience, and so on in which the subjects
"reliably detected" "small differences" between electronically
comparable components.
To prevent your usual quibbling just give references to ANY such
reported tests - your choice of detailed criteria.
I'll shorten the pain and save the wriggle. No positive ABX component
comparisons exist. Not between anything and anything : not wires, not
preamps or amps, not cd players, not phono cartridges, not
loudspeakers. When the average Joe ABXes everything sounds the same.
Such is this test supposedly designed to help detect "small
differences".
Ludovic Mirabel

[Fella]

wrote:
>
>
>
> Where? When? By you? Give proper detailed reference to one single ABX
> component comparison test report with a statistically valid,
> representattive number of subjects (start with 15 just a few more than
> you and your friends)), selected to be representative for age, gender,
> musical exposure and experience, and so on in which the subjects
> "reliably detected" "small differences" between electronically
> comparable components.
> To prevent your usual quibbling just give references to ANY such
> reported tests - your choice of detailed criteria.

As usual nothing, zilch, nada, zero, NO response from krueger.

BTW: How does the "wire is wire" thing go again arny? Lemeseee: "wire is
wire when both sets are same gauge and length zip cord and same
materials are used for their construction" .. Right......

[[email protected]]

45. Fella Jul 19, 10:21 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Fella > - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 13:21:49 +0300
Local: Tues,Jul 19 2005 10:21 am
Subject: Re: One Variable ABX Testing Doesn't Account For
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


A.Krueger said:
When differences are very small but audible it becomes hard
> to characterise what the difference is, exactly.
> Nevertheless the difference can be detected reliably.

I answered:
> Where? When? By you? Give proper detailed reference to one single ABX
> component comparison test report with a statistically valid,
> representattive number of subjects (start with 15 just a few more than
> you and your friends)), selected to be representative for age, gender,
> musical exposure and experience, and so on in which the subjects
> "reliably detected" "small differences" between electronically
> comparable components.
> To prevent your usual quibbling just give references to ANY such
> reported tests - your choice of detailed criteria.

Fella commented:

"As usual nothing, zilch, nada, zero, NO response from krueger"

Exactly. Neither from Krueger nor from any other of the
usually so vocal, self-proclaimed internet "scientists" ( or should it
be "scientologists"?).
Always eager to proclaim their convictions, philosophies and articles
of faith till they are challenged to produce some EXPERIMENTAL evidence
supporting their holy, revealed from on- high books.
The argument stops when facts are asked for.
And it is not the first time. If they hope it will all pass into
oblivion providing they keep quiet they have my assurance that I will
continue reminding them, whenever they again try to lay down the law.
If only to protect the innocents.who just enter audio.

[Fella]

wrote:

> The argument stops when facts are asked for.

Yes. There is this one called pukey pinkerton, who has the audacity to
say "who needs academic papers for the bleedin obvious" !!

> If only to protect the innocents.who just enter audio.
>

That's another good point.