My opinion on audio testing.

[John Richards]

I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, nor am I a "golden eared"
audiophile. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed and/or ridculed by most
of you but since this is a public discussion forum I will jump in.

The crux of most of the arguments that I have read seem to be the ability or
inability to hear differences in certain audio components. For the sake of
this discussion, I'll direct my comments to amplifiers only.

The "objectivists" have already *proven* that *all* competently designed
amplifiers sound alike. They proved this many years ago by having test
subjects listen for short periods of time to different amplifiers without
knowing the identity of the amplifiers, and concluded that because
statistics tell them that the listeners could not reliably distinguish
between the two, then there cannot be and will never be a difference.

The "subjectivists" (primarily those with a vested interest in the
"high-end") claim that these tests are flawed and that an individual
component has to be listened to for an extended period of time in a familiar
environment to identify differences.

What about a test where the subjects are the actual reviewers who claim
there are differences. Let them actually *review* each amplifier
independently, without knowing the identity of the amplifiers, as they would
normally do and see if they come up with consistent comments regarding any
similarities and/or differences between the amplifiers. Have them write a
short review after each listening session describing the sound. If all the
reviews are consistent among the reviewers, identifying similar sound
characteristics for the same amplifier and different sound characteristic
for different amplifiers, then I think it would be safe to say that *these*
subjects could hear a difference.

This scenario should also eliminate most of the stringent controls required
in ABX tests because if the differences in sound noted by the reviewers is
actually due to other factors that might not be the same for each reviewer
(different source material, different levels or even different speakers),
those differences in sound could probably be identified as being the result
of some factor other than the sound of the amplifier under test. An extreme
but unlikely example, one reviewer notices a lack of bass response and
identifies that as a deficiency in the amplifier while the other reviewers
note that the bass response of the amplifier is a strong point. When it is
recognized that the reviewer who identified the lack of bass uses small
speakers with limited bass response while the other reviewers use speakers
with extended bass response, it is easy to dismiss the difference in
observed bass response as it relates to the amplifier under test.

I do see some problems with this method though:

Terminology used to describe the sound must be understood and agreed upon by
testers and administrators, perhaps something like Stereophile's glossary of
terms used in their subjective reviews.

The test cannot confirm the results of the ABX tests but could discredit
them. At best it would either *prove* that there are differences or suggest
that whether there are differences or not, perhaps the test reviewers
should consider a career change.

To actually implement such a test would probably be impractical considering
the time and logistics involved.

Those administering the test would have to be neutral. This might be the
biggest problem. From what little I've read on the newsgroups and in
limited research on Google, I don't think that there is anyone even
interested in the debate who does not have an unshakeable bias toward one
side or the other.

And finally the biggest problem - who really cares? Regardless the outcome,
I don't think most of you would consider it relevant anyway, unless, of
course, it confirmed your current beliefs.

Just my opinion,

John

[Robert Morein]

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, nor am I a "golden eared"
> audiophile. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed and/or ridculed by
most
> of you but since this is a public discussion forum I will jump in.
>
> The crux of most of the arguments that I have read seem to be the ability
or
> inability to hear differences in certain audio components. For the sake
of
> this discussion, I'll direct my comments to amplifiers only.
>
> The "objectivists" have already *proven* that *all* competently designed
> amplifiers sound alike.

No, they did not. This is a false claim, as Ludovic Mirabel has shown at
length.

> The "subjectivists" (primarily those with a vested interest in the
> "high-end")

None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business relationship with
the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi in
any way.

[Bret Ludwig]

>>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business relationship with
the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
in
any way. "<<

How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
several?

[George Middius]

Robert Morein said the latest Hivie drone:

>> The "objectivists" have already *proven* that *all* competently designed
>> amplifiers sound alike.

>No, they did not. This is a false claim, as Ludovic Mirabel has shown at
>length.

You know the Krooborg and the Bug Eater are in trouble when they have to call in
reinforcements from other forums.

>> The "subjectivists" (primarily those with a vested interest in the
>> "high-end")

>None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business relationship with
>the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi in
>any way.

I think the poor dumb 'borg is just exercising his freedom of religion. As you
probably know, They are compelled to view the consumer audio industry in terms
of monetary cost. They are unable to comprehend any of the intangibles that
Normals cherish in hobbies like audio, such as superior performance and pride of
ownership. The only way the 'borgs can possibly deal with this forbidding topic
is by mindless regurgitating Their beloved class warfare mantras. In the
darkened corners of Their decimated souls where Their remaining sparks of
humanity flicker faintly, They might understand that high-end audio is not meant
for Them. But Their robotic superegos demand that They keep chanting what we
know as 'borgma. And They will continue to do so until They are decommissioned
and deactivated.



..
..
..
..

[Trevor Wilson]

"John Richards" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, nor am I a "golden eared"
> audiophile. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed and/or ridculed by
> most of you but since this is a public discussion forum I will jump in.
>
> The crux of most of the arguments that I have read seem to be the ability
> or inability to hear differences in certain audio components. For the
> sake of this discussion, I'll direct my comments to amplifiers only.
>
> The "objectivists" have already *proven* that *all* competently designed
> amplifiers sound alike.

**Not quite. The flaw in this argument is what constitutes "competently
designed".

They proved this many years ago by having test
> subjects listen for short periods of time to different amplifiers without
> knowing the identity of the amplifiers, and concluded that because
> statistics tell them that the listeners could not reliably distinguish
> between the two, then there cannot be and will never be a difference.

**And again, not quite. Most of the tests were flawed, in some critical
ways. Here are a few which spring to mind:

* The ancilliary equipment was of poor quality.
* Many of the listeners were of poor quality (there is no point having
uneducated listeners in any audio trial).
* The condictions may not have been conducive for low stress testing for
listeners.

>
> The "subjectivists" (primarily those with a vested interest in the
> "high-end") claim that these tests are flawed and that an individual
> component has to be listened to for an extended period of time in a
> familiar environment to identify differences.
>
> What about a test where the subjects are the actual reviewers who claim
> there are differences. Let them actually *review* each amplifier
> independently, without knowing the identity of the amplifiers, as they
> would normally do and see if they come up with consistent comments
> regarding any similarities and/or differences between the amplifiers.
> Have them write a short review after each listening session describing the
> sound. If all the reviews are consistent among the reviewers, identifying
> similar sound characteristics for the same amplifier and different sound
> characteristic for different amplifiers, then I think it would be safe to
> say that *these* subjects could hear a difference.

**There is nothing wrong with ABX testing, per se. It is an excllent method
of determining if there is a difference between products. The problems creep
in, when typical test methods are used. A better method would be (say): To
allow a listener to keep two (or three) products in his/her own system, for
an extended period, switching between competing products and identifying the
preferred product. Nothing in ABX testing precludes this procedure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business relationship
with
> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
> in
> any way. "<<
>
> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
> several?
>
Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been fleshed
out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.

There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections. But I
do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
termed "subjectivists".

Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
1. You can't hear what you care about.
2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice, which is
a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
3. All amplifiers sound the same.
4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be transparent,
or what you think you hear is a lie.
5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.

The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the signficant
possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain any
traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief that
discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do best,
listen?

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been fleshed
> out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
> John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.

Also Glenn Zelniker and Francois Legal. Plus others who haven't posted
here for several years, such as Bamborough and Frindle. Whether you should
include Phoebe Johnston is even more debatable.

However, I think your main point is unassailable, in that only one of
these people is linked directly to an actual audio company. (That's
M. Legal, who I've been told is employed by Philips.)

> The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the signficant
> possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain any
> traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief that
> discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do best,
> listen?

Quite right. More to the point, IMO, is that once you buy into the
crack-brained aBxism religion, you're substituting dreary "tests" for the
fun of the hobby. What human being wants to do that?

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, nor am I a "golden eared"
> > audiophile. I'm sure my comments will be dismissed and/or ridculed by
> > most of you but since this is a public discussion forum I will jump in.
> >
> > The crux of most of the arguments that I have read seem to be the
ability
> > or inability to hear differences in certain audio components. For the
> > sake of this discussion, I'll direct my comments to amplifiers only.
> >
> > The "objectivists" have already *proven* that *all* competently designed
> > amplifiers sound alike.
>
> **Not quite. The flaw in this argument is what constitutes "competently
> designed".
>
> They proved this many years ago by having test
> > subjects listen for short periods of time to different amplifiers
without
> > knowing the identity of the amplifiers, and concluded that because
> > statistics tell them that the listeners could not reliably distinguish
> > between the two, then there cannot be and will never be a difference.
>
> **And again, not quite. Most of the tests were flawed, in some critical
> ways. Here are a few which spring to mind:
>
> * The ancilliary equipment was of poor quality.
> * Many of the listeners were of poor quality (there is no point having
> uneducated listeners in any audio trial).
> * The condictions may not have been conducive for low stress testing for
> listeners.
>
> >
> > The "subjectivists" (primarily those with a vested interest in the
> > "high-end") claim that these tests are flawed and that an individual
> > component has to be listened to for an extended period of time in a
> > familiar environment to identify differences.
> >
> > What about a test where the subjects are the actual reviewers who claim
> > there are differences. Let them actually *review* each amplifier
> > independently, without knowing the identity of the amplifiers, as they
> > would normally do and see if they come up with consistent comments
> > regarding any similarities and/or differences between the amplifiers.
> > Have them write a short review after each listening session describing
the
> > sound. If all the reviews are consistent among the reviewers,
identifying
> > similar sound characteristics for the same amplifier and different sound
> > characteristic for different amplifiers, then I think it would be safe
to
> > say that *these* subjects could hear a difference.
>
> **There is nothing wrong with ABX testing, per se. It is an excllent
method
> of determining if there is a difference between products. The problems
creep
> in, when typical test methods are used. A better method would be (say): To
> allow a listener to keep two (or three) products in his/her own system,
for
> an extended period, switching between competing products and identifying
the
> preferred product. Nothing in ABX testing precludes this procedure.
>
>
I second this.
The reason it hasn't been done is not because it would discredit ABX, which
it wouldn't, but it would contradict the need for the proponents to believe
that they're not missing a part of the audio experience. If it turned out
that a signficant minority could distinguish supposedly indistinguishable
components, it would badly bruise some egos.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
>> >>relationship
> with
>> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
>> in
>> any way. "<<
>>
>> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
>> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
>> several?
>>
> Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been fleshed
> out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
> John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
>
> There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections. But I
> do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
> follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
> debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
> termed "subjectivists".
>
> Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
> 1. You can't hear what you care about.
Bull****.

> 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice, which
> is
> a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.

From a standpoint of anything revealing, yes.

> 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
Bull****, nobody ever said that and you know it, unless you count it as one
of the lies you like to tell.

> 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
> transparent,
> or what you think you hear is a lie.

Another lie. 2 Actually the ABX comaprator is transparent and nobody has
insisted that ABX is the only reliable way to do listening comparisons.

> 5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.
>
> The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the signficant
> possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain any
> traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief
> that
> discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do best,
> listen?
>
They don't need to gain confidence with the consumer, since most gear is
made well enough that differences are rare.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
> >> >>relationship
> > with
> >> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
> >> in
> >> any way. "<<
> >>
> >> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
> >> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
> >> several?
> >>
> > Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been
fleshed
> > out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> > financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
> > John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
> >
> > There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections. But
I
> > do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
> > follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
> > debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
> > termed "subjectivists".
> >
> > Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
> > 1. You can't hear what you care about.
> Bull****.
>
> > 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice, which
> > is
> > a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
>
> From a standpoint of anything revealing, yes.
>
> > 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
> Bull****, nobody ever said that and you know it, unless you count it as
one
> of the lies you like to tell.
>
> > 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
> > transparent,
> > or what you think you hear is a lie.
>
> Another lie. 2 Actually the ABX comaprator is transparent and nobody has
> insisted that ABX is the only reliable way to do listening comparisons.
>
But the only way you can prove that an ABX comparator is transparent is with
another ABX comparator which is known to be transparent.
Reducto-ad-absurdium; the ABX comparator cannot be proven to be transparent.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
>> >>relationship
> with
>> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
>> in
>> any way. "<<
>>
>> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
>> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
>> several?
>>
> Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been fleshed
> out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
> John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
>
> There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections. But I
> do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
> follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
> debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
> termed "subjectivists".
>
> Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
> 1. You can't hear what you care about.
> 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice, which
> is
> a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
> 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
> 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
> transparent,
> or what you think you hear is a lie.
> 5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.
>
> The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the signficant
> possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain any
> traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief
> that
> discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do best,
> listen?
>
>
Maybe you shouold try using the training program you can find here. It was
recomended top me by Mr. Olive in a recent e-mail.

http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=168

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
> >> >>relationship
> > with
> >> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
> >> in
> >> any way. "<<
> >>
> >> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
> >> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
> >> several?
> >>
> > Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been
fleshed
> > out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> > financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger, and
> > John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
> >
> > There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections. But
I
> > do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
> > follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
> > debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
> > termed "subjectivists".
> >
> > Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
> > 1. You can't hear what you care about.
> > 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice, which
> > is
> > a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
> > 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
> > 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
> > transparent,
> > or what you think you hear is a lie.
> > 5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.
> >
> > The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the
signficant
> > possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain
any
> > traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief
> > that
> > discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do
best,
> > listen?
> >
> >
> Maybe you shouold try using the training program you can find here. It
was
> recomended top me by Mr. Olive in a recent e-mail.
>
> http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=168
How to be a borg.
The only training program worth anything is to listen to as much good stuff
as possible.
An added benefit is, it's fun.

[[email protected]]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
>> >> >>relationship
>> > with
>> >> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with hifi
>> >> in
>> >> any way. "<<
>> >>
>> >> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And is
>> >> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
>> >> several?
>> >>
>> > Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been
> fleshed
>> > out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
>> > financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger,
>> > and
>> > John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
>> >
>> > There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections.
>> > But
> I
>> > do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
>> > follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
>> > debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the incorrectly
>> > termed "subjectivists".
>> >
>> > Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
>> > 1. You can't hear what you care about.
>> > 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice,
>> > which
>> > is
>> > a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
>> > 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
>> > 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
>> > transparent,
>> > or what you think you hear is a lie.
>> > 5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.
>> >
>> > The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the
> signficant
>> > possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to gain
> any
>> > traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a belief
>> > that
>> > discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do
> best,
>> > listen?
>> >
>> >
>> Maybe you shouold try using the training program you can find here. It
> was
>> recomended top me by Mr. Olive in a recent e-mail.
>>
>> http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=168
> How to be a borg.
> The only training program worth anything is to listen to as much good
> stuff
> as possible.
> An added benefit is, it's fun.
>
An diotic opinion you get to have.

[Robert Morein]

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >> >>"None of the proponents on this newsgroup have any business
> >> >> >>relationship
> >> > with
> >> >> the high end.Personally, I do not have a business that deals with
hifi
> >> >> in
> >> >> any way. "<<
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know that no one here has any such vested interest? And
is
> >> >> there only one form of vesting this interest may take, or are there
> >> >> several?
> >> >>
> >> > Over the years, the backgrounds of the various posters have been
> > fleshed
> >> > out. As far as I am aware, the only persons who have had some kind of
> >> > financial connection to high end audio are Greg Singh, Arny Krueger,
> >> > and
> >> > John Atkinson, and Bill Watkins.
> >> >
> >> > There may, of course, be occasional posters who do have connections.
> >> > But
> > I
> >> > do not sense that the debate is polarized as John Richards states. He
> >> > follows the tradition the so-called objectivists in the use of dirty
> >> > debating tactics, trying to undermine the sincerity of the
incorrectly
> >> > termed "subjectivists".
> >> >
> >> > Truely, the attitude of the Krueger gang is weird:
> >> > 1. You can't hear what you care about.
> >> > 2. Your sighted observation is not merely vulnerable to prejudice,
> >> > which
> >> > is
> >> > a legitimate concern, but WORTHLESS.
> >> > 3. All amplifiers sound the same.
> >> > 4. You must use our magic box, which has NOT been proven to be
> >> > transparent,
> >> > or what you think you hear is a lie.
> >> > 5. In spite of all of this, you enjoy listening to music.
> >> >
> >> > The ABX camp is sheer foolishness. This is why, in spite of the
> > signficant
> >> > possibility of imagined differences, they have never been able to
gain
> > any
> >> > traction with the consumer. After all, who wants to deal with a
belief
> >> > that
> >> > discredits the entire audio community in doing what they like to do
> > best,
> >> > listen?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Maybe you shouold try using the training program you can find here. It
> > was
> >> recomended top me by Mr. Olive in a recent e-mail.
> >>
> >> http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=168
> > How to be a borg.
> > The only training program worth anything is to listen to as much good
> > stuff
> > as possible.
> > An added benefit is, it's fun.
> >
> An diotic opinion you get to have.
You have a kidney problem?