More from Qaaludeovic [Archive]

October 25th 05, 05:21 AM

It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..."
is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures..

A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My
correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" >"Since
>there's no controvery
> over the idea that speakers sound >
>different, the ABX test
> would be a poor choice"
Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that
they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully?
Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound
different..
But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed"
components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps,
cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested.
Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
different. So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a
"poor choice"- no room for doubt..
In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those
that "we know" will sound the same. It would seem a pretty
pointless exercise to a Martian. And to me as well..
But in fact it is correct.: They do sound the same. When ABXed.. Which
proves the value of "testing" things. the "scientific ",
objectivist way..
Which raises this dilemma:: How was it "proven" that they sound the
same? By ABXing them of course. But was ABX ever properly researched to
establish what *degree* of difference is needed before you can hear it
while ABXing.. And what class of listeners are we talking about? Are
your results better if you're an ABX trained technician or a
professional symphony orchestra member or a rocker, or a man or a
woman.? This kind of detail is needed to validate ABX as a proper
instrument for differentiating audio components as tools for playing
music. Not the pink noise, not the codecs, not phase differences but
music. ABX use in research is one thing, Listening to audio is
another. Unless you like pink noise and codecs.
And is it just possible that when you're being ABX trained are you
learning how to cope with:this demanding task "Now I play you A, now
B, now X. Is X more like A or B" rather than learning how to sharpen
your recognition of differences?
The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is
that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like
better?" rather than "Is A different from B". This is how it is
done in any other sphere of life: judging reproduction of paintings,
varieties of cheese , wine and yes pianos, flutes and violins..
We are an infinite variety of human beings not testing machines.
If you tell me that you tested something double blind ( a very sensible
thing to do) or ABXed it and I have no respect for your taste I'll
still prefer someone else's unscientific opinion. And no doubt
vice-versa..
Ludovic Mirabel
A disclaimer.: I have no financial interest in any audio product-
though, sometimes,living on the little I managed to save I wish I had.

Robert Morein

October 25th 05, 05:33 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since Quaaludeovic..."
> is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener pastures..
>
> A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for a reply. My
> correspondent Arny said -not for the first time-:" >"Since
> >there's no controvery
> > over the idea that speakers sound >
> >different, the ABX test
> > would be a poor choice"
> Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we know that
> they sound different" Am I not translating faithfully?
> Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims may sound
> different..
> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly designed"
> components are the same electronically: cables, preamps, amps,
> cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound the same,when ABX tested.
> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> different. So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says it is a
> "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
> In other words the only components worthy of a listening test are those
> that "we know" will sound the same. It would seem a pretty
> pointless exercise to a Martian. And to me as well..
> But in fact it is correct.: They do sound the same.

Be careful, Mirabel. The borgs will miss this irony. They are not programmed
to understand natural language. In fact, their favorite response is the
infinite "do" loop.

When ABXed.. Which
> proves the value of "testing" things. the "scientific ",
> objectivist way..
> Which raises this dilemma:: How was it "proven" that they sound the
> same? By ABXing them of course. But was ABX ever properly researched to
> establish what *degree* of difference is needed before you can hear it
> while ABXing.. And what class of listeners are we talking about? Are
> your results better if you're an ABX trained technician or a
> professional symphony orchestra member or a rocker, or a man or a
> woman.? This kind of detail is needed to validate ABX as a proper
> instrument for differentiating audio components as tools for playing
> music. Not the pink noise, not the codecs, not phase differences but
> music. ABX use in research is one thing, Listening to audio is
> another. Unless you like pink noise and codecs.
> And is it just possible that when you're being ABX trained are you
> learning how to cope with:this demanding task "Now I play you A, now
> B, now X. Is X more like A or B" rather than learning how to sharpen
> your recognition of differences?

In that case, the subject generally asks for his tenth cup of coffee.

> The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is
> that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like
> better?" rather than "Is A different from B". This is how it is
> done in any other sphere of life: judging reproduction of paintings,
> varieties of cheese , wine and yes pianos, flutes and violins..
> We are an infinite variety of human beings not testing machines.

A year or so ago, I made a similar point. To the 'borgs, "preference" is
merely a subset of "distinguishability". But pollsters know that the answer
to an issue depends upon how the questions are asked. It cannot be assumed
that the mind is internally consistent to the extent that the assumed
logical relationship holds. IOW, in the case of human beings, it is entirely
possible that a test for preference will distinguish better than a test for
distinguishability!

> If you tell me that you tested something double blind ( a very sensible
> thing to do) or ABXed it and I have no respect for your taste I'll
> still prefer someone else's unscientific opinion. And no doubt
> vice-versa..

Personally, I don't care how it was tested, as long as the person who did so
has a record of distinguishing the things that I do. We must be able to see
the same three primaries. Not everyone on this group can do so. From those I
respect, I exclude those who are paralyzed by cognitive dissonance; too
based in defensive positions to desire change. This can be either because
one is a devoted pseudo-scientist, or because one adores some horribly
sounding piece of equipment. The inability to sequester the self exists on
both sides of this issue.

> Ludovic Mirabel
> A disclaimer.: I have no financial interest in any audio product-
> though, sometimes,living on the little I managed to save I wish I had.
>
I bought used. My stuff is between 5 and 25 years old. But I don't hate
Krell, simply because I am not likely to buy one.

Arny Krueger

October 25th 05, 01:24 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com
> It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since
> Quaaludeovic..."
> is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener
> pastures..

Mentally speaking Ludovic, AFAIK you were never alive. I
still remember laughing myself silly at your proposals that
people do listening tests on two pieces of equipment by
listening to them at the same time.

> A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for
> a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first
> time-:"

> "Since there's no controversy over the idea that
> speakers sound
> different, the ABX test would be a poor choice"

I get a feeling that you are *finally* getting it, Ludovic -
at least a tiny bit.

> Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we
> know that they sound different" Am I not translating
> faithfully?

Finally, you got this one right!

> Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims
> may sound different..

Wrong.

You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
controversy as to whether they sound different.

> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> the same,when ABX tested.

This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
its what's known as a truism.

All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
same. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
mission, and its fair to say that they are not
well-designed. However, just sounding the same is not the
only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
and durability criteria.

> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> different.

Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
different.

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm

> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..

Just observing what should be obvious.

> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.

Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.

George Middius

October 25th 05, 03:15 PM

Arnii, this is quite a breakthrough. It only happens once or maybe twice a year,
so I think we should all notice your moment of self-awareness.

>Mentally speaking

Indeed. Good use of the vernacular, Mr. Kroofeces. Oh, and thanks Arnii for
admitting you're mental.

[email protected]

October 26th 05, 05:58 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > It seems that the wittily titled thread: "Since
> > Quaaludeovic..."
> > is dead of starvation.. The opposition found greener
> > pastures..
>
> Mentally speaking Ludovic, AFAIK you were never alive. I
> still remember laughing myself silly at your proposals that
> people do listening tests on two pieces of equipment by
> listening to them at the same time.
I remember something else Arny. At the time you were accusing me of
promoting a test in competition with your brain-child. It sounded a bit
paranoid to me since I kept repeating ad nauseam that that my results
when comparing components my way had no validity outside of my
listening room and that I had nothing to sell to go with it- no magic
switch-box, nothing.
As for "laughing silly" I recommended ABX listening to several ladies
with bulimia as an easier way to get results than with finger down the
throat. They refused: they were so overcome with laughter reading
pomposities about how Scientific your "test" is that they never got to
the vomiting part. They thought your pretentiuos combativeness about a
never research-validated listening method for finding differences with
invariably negative "it all sounds the same" published results a true
ray of hilarious sunshine in their gloomy lives.
Now that I returned your compliments let's get down to the gist.

>
> > A weeny point came to mind while waiting fruitlessly for
> > a reply. My correspondent Arny said -not for the first
> > time-:"
>
> > "Since there's no controversy over the idea that
> > speakers sound
> > different, the ABX test would be a poor choice"
>
> I get a feeling that you are *finally* getting it, Ludovic -
> at least a tiny bit.
>
> As you observed I did not have your advantages. I did not attend a "good English-speaking college" (would it be in Detroit?).
You were not around to direct me when fate sent me to Cambridge (in
Cambridgeshire, England) and later to Edinburgh and London to learn my
English. I looked to Marlowe, Shakespeare, John Donne,the XVIIIth cent.
English "metaphysical" poets, Thackeray, Melville, T,S Elliot and James
Joyce to teach me.
To think how much time I could have saved if I had your sage advice.
True I caught up with you a little during a year's residency in a
Brooklyn N.Y. hospital.

> > Which means: "No point in ABXing loudspeakers because we
> > know that they sound different" Am I not translating
> > faithfully?
>
> Finally, you got this one right!
It was an effort but it is nice to be appreciated by a teacher.
>
> > Ergo you ABX only those components that someone claims
> > may sound different..
>
> Wrong.
>
> You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
> controversy as to whether they sound different.
>
Please, cher maitre, define "reasonable" a little more closely. Would
it be you by any chance who decides which controversies are
"reasonable"?
Give also a few references to the published "reasonable controversies"
investigated by ABX with results. Just to please us dimwits.
> > But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> > designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> > preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> > the same,when ABX tested.
>
> This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
> its what's known as a truism.
Damn, you're right again, it is so advanced that up till now I thought
that it was utter garbage promoted mainly by two categories of people.
1) Those who never sit down, listen
and compare "hi-fi" with their recollection of real live, unamplified
musical performance ie. the background noise lovers 2) the vocal kind
of electronic engineer who thinks that his final year textbook ended
the history of science.
>
> All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
> sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
> same. All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
> sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
> If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
> mission, and its fair to say that they are not
> well-designed. However, just sounding the same is not the
> only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
> must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
> and durability criteria.
>
> > Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> > different.
>
> Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
> the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
> different.
>
The two concepts of "we know loudspeakers sound different" and "they
should sound the same" is truly beyond my English entitlement. I think
you should try it on Sean Olive, D'Agostino and such. They are still
stumbling in the dark listening, comparing...
> http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
>
No , not again!
> > So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> > it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
>
> Just observing what should be obvious.
>
> > In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> > test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
>
> Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.

"Reasonableness" again. A truly well-defined, scientific term from a
scientific oracle. A few examples, master?!
Ludovic Mirabel
I feel forced to undig my Audio Express listening method proposal when
I feel more energetic.
You already said that I had suggested sighted comparing(untrue).
Holding my breath waiting for what you'll think of next.

paul packer

October 26th 05, 06:53 AM

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
>controversy as to whether they sound different.
>
>> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
>> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
>> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
>> the same,when ABX tested.
>
>This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
>its what's known as a truism.

Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.

>All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
>sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
>same.

A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.

>All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
>sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
>If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
>mission, and its fair to say that they are not
>well-designed.

You mean sounds the same to you or to me?

>However, just sounding the same is not the
>only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
>must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
>and durability criteria.

Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.

>> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
>> different.
>
>Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
>the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
>different.

Care to list which is which. :-)

>http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
>
>> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
>> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
>
>Just observing what should be obvious.
>
>> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
>> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
>
>Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.

And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 09:41 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
> >controversy as to whether they sound different.
> >
> >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> >> the same,when ABX tested.
> >
> >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
> >its what's known as a truism.
>
> Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
>
> >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
> >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
> >same.
>
> A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
> electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
>
> >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
> >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
> >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
> >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
> >well-designed.
>
> You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
>
> >However, just sounding the same is not the
> >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
> >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
> >and durability criteria.
>
> Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.
>
> >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> >> different.
> >
> >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
> >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
> >different.
>
> Care to list which is which. :-)
>
> >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
> >
> >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
> >
> >Just observing what should be obvious.
> >
> >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
> >
> >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
>
> And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
> difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
> demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
> measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.

I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
different, sound different when tested by ABX.
Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk
belief!

paul packer

October 26th 05, 11:34 AM

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:41:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk
>belief!

Well, let's not open it then. :-)

[email protected]

October 26th 05, 06:25 PM

Robert Morein wrote:
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
> > >controversy as to whether they sound different.
> > >
> > >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> > >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> > >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> > >> the same,when ABX tested.
> > >
> > >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
> > >its what's known as a truism.
> >
> > Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
> >
> > >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
> > >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
> > >same.
> >
> > A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
> > electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
> >
> > >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
> > >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
> > >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
> > >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
> > >well-designed.
> >
> > You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
> >
> > >However, just sounding the same is not the
> > >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
> > >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
> > >and durability criteria.
> >
> > Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.
> >
> > >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> > >> different.
> > >
> > >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
> > >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
> > >different.
> >
> > Care to list which is which. :-)
> >
> > >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
> > >
> > >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> > >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
> > >
> > >Just observing what should be obvious.
> > >
> > >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> > >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
> > >
> > >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
> >
> > And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
> > difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
> > demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
> > measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
>
> I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
> All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
> same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
> All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> different, sound different when tested by ABX.
> Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk
> belief!

No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: "> All devices
which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> different, sound different when tested by ABX."
There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated
that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the
"obvious" would vanish into thin air.
Ludovic Mirabel

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 06:53 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:41:44 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and folk
> >belief!
>
> Well, let's not open it then. :-)

Why not? It could be interesting reading.

Robert Morein

October 26th 05, 07:23 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
> > > >controversy as to whether they sound different.
> > > >
> > > >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> > > >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> > > >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> > > >> the same,when ABX tested.
> > > >
> > > >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
> > > >its what's known as a truism.
> > >
> > > Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
> > >
> > > >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
> > > >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
> > > >same.
> > >
> > > A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
> > > electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
> > >
> > > >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
> > > >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
> > > >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
> > > >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
> > > >well-designed.
> > >
> > > You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
> > >
> > > >However, just sounding the same is not the
> > > >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
> > > >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
> > > >and durability criteria.
> > >
> > > Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.
> > >
> > > >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> > > >> different.
> > > >
> > > >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
> > > >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
> > > >different.
> > >
> > > Care to list which is which. :-)
> > >
> > > >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
> > > >
> > > >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> > > >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
> > > >
> > > >Just observing what should be obvious.
> > > >
> > > >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> > > >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
> > > >
> > > >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
> > >
> > > And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
> > > difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
> > > demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
> > > measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
> >
> > I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
> > same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> > different, sound different when tested by ABX.
> > Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and
folk
> > belief!
>
> No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: "> All devices
> which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> > different, sound different when tested by ABX."
> There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
> under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated
> that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
> from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
> difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
> And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
> were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
> need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the
> "obvious" would vanish into thin air.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell.

October 26th 05, 09:58 PM

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
>> > > >controversy as to whether they sound different.
>> > > >
>> > > >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
>> > > >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
>> > > >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
>> > > >> the same,when ABX tested.
>> > > >
>> > > >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
>> > > >its what's known as a truism.
>> > >
>> > > Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
>> > >
>> > > >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
>> > > >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
>> > > >same.
>> > >
>> > > A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
>> > > electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
>> > >
>> > > >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
>> > > >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
>> > > >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
>> > > >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
>> > > >well-designed.
>> > >
>> > > You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
>> > >
>> > > >However, just sounding the same is not the
>> > > >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
>> > > >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
>> > > >and durability criteria.
>> > >
>> > > Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.
>> > >
>> > > >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
>> > > >> different.
>> > > >
>> > > >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
>> > > >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
>> > > >different.
>> > >
>> > > Care to list which is which. :-)
>> > >
>> > > >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
>> > > >
>> > > >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
>> > > >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
>> > > >
>> > > >Just observing what should be obvious.
>> > > >
>> > > >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
>> > > >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
>> > > >
>> > > >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
>> > >
>> > > And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
>> > > difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
>> > > demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
>> > > measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
>> >
>> > I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
>> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
>> > same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
>> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
>> > different, sound different when tested by ABX.
>> > Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and
> folk
>> > belief!
>>
>> No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: "> All devices
>> which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
>> > different, sound different when tested by ABX."
>> There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
>> under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated
>> that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
>> from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
>> difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
>> And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
>> were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
>> need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the
>> "obvious" would vanish into thin air.
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>
> It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell.
>
That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since
they both use ABX, among other blind protocols.

[email protected]

October 27th 05, 06:18 AM

wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Robert Morein wrote:
> >> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
> >> > > >controversy as to whether they sound different.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
> >> > > >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
> >> > > >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
> >> > > >> the same,when ABX tested.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
> >> > > >its what's known as a truism.
> >> > >
> >> > > Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
> >> > >
> >> > > >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
> >> > > >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
> >> > > >same.
> >> > >
> >> > > A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
> >> > > electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
> >> > >
> >> > > >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
> >> > > >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
> >> > > >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
> >> > > >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
> >> > > >well-designed.
> >> > >
> >> > > You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
> >> > >
> >> > > >However, just sounding the same is not the
> >> > > >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
> >> > > >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
> >> > > >and durability criteria.
> >> > >
> >> > > Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.
> >> > >
> >> > > >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
> >> > > >> different.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
> >> > > >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
> >> > > >different.
> >> > >
> >> > > Care to list which is which. :-)
> >> > >
> >> > > >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
> >> > > >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Just observing what should be obvious.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
> >> > > >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
> >> > >
> >> > > And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
> >> > > difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
> >> > > demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
> >> > > measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
> >> >
> >> > I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
> >> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
> >> > same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
> >> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> >> > different, sound different when tested by ABX.
> >> > Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and
> > folk
> >> > belief!
> >>
> >> No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: "> All devices
> >> which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
> >> > different, sound different when tested by ABX."
> >> There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
> >> under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated
> >> that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
> >> from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
> >> difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
> >> And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
> >> were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
> >> need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the
> >> "obvious" would vanish into thin air.
> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >>
> > It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell.
> >
> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since
> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols.

__________________________________________________ ___

> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since
> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols

Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to
your confidential sources is using ABX.
Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
scientist like you.
And of course it would be about comparing components because that is
what a lay audio forum is interested in.

And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no
problem distinguishing the components from each other.
Ludovic Mirabel
Just remembered; you tried it all once before but it turned out.. you
know how. And I'm sure you would not want me to remind you in detail.

October 28th 05, 09:09 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Robert Morein wrote:
>> >> > "paul packer" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
>> >> > > >controversy as to whether they sound different.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
>> >> > > >> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
>> >> > > >> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
>> >> > > >> the same,when ABX tested.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
>> >> > > >its what's known as a truism.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
>> >> > > >sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
>> >> > > >same.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
>> >> > > electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
>> >> > > >sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
>> >> > > >If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
>> >> > > >mission, and its fair to say that they are not
>> >> > > >well-designed.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You mean sounds the same to you or to me?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >However, just sounding the same is not the
>> >> > > >only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
>> >> > > >must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
>> >> > > >and durability criteria.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into
>> >> > > account.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
>> >> > > >> different.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
>> >> > > >the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
>> >> > > >different.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Care to list which is which. :-)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
>> >> > > >> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Just observing what should be obvious.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
>> >> > > >> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
>> >> > > difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
>> >> > > demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
>> >> > > measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
>> >> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
>> >> > the
>> >> > same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
>> >> > All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
>> >> > different, sound different when tested by ABX.
>> >> > Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and
>> > folk
>> >> > belief!
>> >>
>> >> No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: "> All devices
>> >> which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
>> >> > different, sound different when tested by ABX."
>> >> There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
>> >> under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test
>> >> demonstrated
>> >> that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
>> >> from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
>> >> difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
>> >> And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
>> >> were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
>> >> need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even
>> >> the
>> >> "obvious" would vanish into thin air.
>> >> Ludovic Mirabel
>> >>
>> > It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell.
>> >
>> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment,
>> since
>> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols.
>
> __________________________________________________ ___
>
>> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment,
>> since
>> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols
>
> Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to
> your confidential sources is using ABX.

I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use
them.

> Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
> that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
> you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
> scientist like you.

I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their
articles or write to Sean personally?

> And of course it would be about comparing components because that is
> what a lay audio forum is interested in.
>
It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on
circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference.

> And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no
> problem distinguishing the components from each other.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he
can give you better leads than I can.

Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth
as you've been here.

October 28th 05, 09:31 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no
> problem distinguishing the components from each other.
> Ludovic Mirabel
> Just remembered; you tried it all once before but it turned out.. you
> know how. And I'm sure you would not want me to remind you in detail.
>
ABX is typically used when the research question is whether or not listeners
can reliably discriminate between two audio products.
Typical uses are listening tests on amplifiers, CD-DVD players, cables or
high quality audio CODECS (high bit rate AAC, AC-3,etc) I frankly don't do
many of these types of comparisons so I seldom use ABX.. instead I use
multiple comparisons and measure preference and other sound quality
attributes (timbre, spatial, distortion)

I have used ABX for testing power amplifiers, where the measured objective
and subjective differences were very small. I often include a preference
measure with the ABX test in the event that if listeners can reliably
identify X, I would also get a measure of which amplifier listeners
preferred, and the magnitude of the preference. I have never published any
experiments where I used ABX, since you often get a null result which is not
very interesting to publish unless you like ****ing off audiophiles who
spent $1,000 on their 1 foot interconnects.

Since most of my testing and research focuses on loudspeakers and room
interactions, the audible differences are sufficiently large that I do not
require the use of ABX. My colleague Todd Welti [2] has used a similar
triangle protocol (ABC ) to judge audibility of mono versus stereo
subwoofers. The use of ABX has been recently reported in AES preprints [1]
for tests of SACD (DSD) versus DVD-Audio (PCM )where they found no reliable
audible differences in recordings encoded in DSD versus PCM. ABX was also
used by Bill Martens and colleagues [3] at McGill to investigate audibility
of MONO VERSUS STEREO bass and effects of subwoofer position and lowpass
cut-off.

ABX is not the only method for determining reliability of audible
differences, and certainly not the most efficient. Since it is a 2-AFC
method (ie there are 2 possible choices) there is 50% chance of guessing
correctly . That means you need to run a reasonability large number of
trials to establish a reliable audible difference at a 0.05 significant
level.

The Triangle Method (ABC) requires listeners to indicate which of the three
sounds (ABC) is different. Here there is only a 1/3 chance of guessing
correctly, meaning fewer trials are required to establish the same chance
probability. This is why Todd Welti chose that method. There could be an
argument that 2-AFC is an easier task for the listener than a 3-AFC but
there is no real evidence to support it.

Another 2-AFC method is the ABC (with hidden reference) that is a ITU-R
standard (BS-R 1116.1) that was used for testing high quality codecs. Here A
is identified as the reference (uncompressed audio) and B or C is the hidden
reference (same as A) and the other is the compressed audio. The method
requires listeners to rate B and C using the 5-point impairment scale. There
are tons of papers in the AES that describe CODEC test results using this
method.

For lower quality CODECS (or anything where the audible differences are not
in question) there is a new method ITU_R BS1534 (also known as MUSHRA or
Multiple Stimulus with Hidden Reference and Anchors) that I use and
recommend. It allows listeners compare multiple products at once which has
been shown to produce more reliable and discriminating results.

For more info I recommend this listening test Tutorial that the AES
Technical Committee on Perception and Subjective Evaluation of Audio Signals
gave at two recent AES Conventions. The presentations from that tutorial can
be downloaded here

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

Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329

[email protected]

October 28th 05, 10:23 PM

NYOB says:> >
> >> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment,
> >> since
> >> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols
> >
> > Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to
> > your confidential sources is using ABX.
>
> I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also use
> them.
>
> > Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
> > that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
> > you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
> > scientist like you.
>
> I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for their
> articles or write to Sean personally?
>
> > And of course it would be about comparing components because that is
> > what a lay audio forum is interested in.
> >
> It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done on
> circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference.
>
> > And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no
> > problem distinguishing the components from each other.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure he
> can give you better leads than I can.
>
> Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the truth
> as you've been here.

__________________________________________________ ___

The subject under discussion is: Quote ONE SINGLE published (any mag.
or Journal) report of the use of ABX to comparing components for their
music reproduction properties with a POSITIVE outcome ie the majority
of panelists differentiated with statistical validity.

ATTENTION: We're talking about ABX specifically NOT just DBT.
NYOB says:
"I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also
use
them"
Which "them".? DBT is not ABX. ABX is one particular derivative of
DBTs.
Re BBC 1) You never, never, never posted any "work done by the BBC"
mentioning ABX. I hate to call you an unscrupulous, inveterate liar..
All you have to do to nail me is to REPOST 2) you sent me on a wild
goose chase in a 10 year catalogue of hundreds of articles about
anything under the sun published by the BBC 3) none of them mentioning
ABX.
Re Nokia (A Finnish cellphone company) Quote a precise reference to
ABX being used in audio component comparison by Nokia
Re B&O: The only site I wasted time looking for and found discusses
propagation of sound. No mention of DBT: no component comparison
I asked:

> Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
> that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
> you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
> scientist like you.
NYOB answers: "I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not
check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally?"

I said: > And of course it would be about comparing components because
that is
> what a lay audio forum is interested in.
His "answer": "It might be or might not be since as has been
mentioned some work is done on
circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference."

Yes and Newton investigated sound waves too. But this is about the ABX
use in ... etc. etc.

I said: > And of course there would be a few postive results; the
panels had no
> problem distinguishing the components from each other.
> Ludovic Mirabel
NYOB:: "Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your
concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can.
Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the
truth as you've been here".

Words fail me: You persist in showing an incredible combination of
bloody cheek with mind-shaking stupidity. Or cold you believe that
everyone else is an idiot?
YOU say YOU have a method for showing differences between speakers.
Have you ever heard what the word *evidence* means?. Of course you have
no evidence, .because none exists.. But you have the audacity to send
me to find your imaginary, evidence for you. And an incredible lack of
courtesy to a busy man directing people to "Sean" ( we ARE
familiar aren't we?) to ask him to search for it.
What's more this is the second time you're doing this.
NYOB - others lost patience with you before me - and no wonder.
I said it before but this time I'll stick to it. Till you have
something sensible- like real evidence- to say I'll just repost this
as an answer to this kind of obnoxious silliness
Ludovic Mirabel

__________________________________________________ _______________________

October 29th 05, 08:21 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NYOB says:> >
>> >> That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment,
>> >> since
>> >> they both use ABX, among other blind protocols
>> >
>> > Try harder; there must be someone else in this world who according to
>> > your confidential sources is using ABX.
>>
>> I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also
>> use
>> them.
>>
>> > Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
>> > that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
>> > you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
>> > scientist like you.
>>
>> I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not check the JAES for
>> their
>> articles or write to Sean personally?
>>
>> > And of course it would be about comparing components because that is
>> > what a lay audio forum is interested in.
>> >
>> It might be or might not be since as has been mentioned some work is done
>> on
>> circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference.
>>
>> > And of course there would be a few postive results; the panels had no
>> > problem distinguishing the components from each other.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel
>>
>> Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your concerns. I'm sure
>> he
>> can give you better leads than I can.
>>
>> Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the
>> truth
>> as you've been here.
>
> __________________________________________________ ___
>
> The subject under discussion is: Quote ONE SINGLE published (any mag.
> or Journal) report of the use of ABX to comparing components for their
> music reproduction properties with a POSITIVE outcome ie the majority
> of panelists differentiated with statistical validity.
>
> ATTENTION: We're talking about ABX specifically NOT just DBT.
> NYOB says:
> "I've already posted work done by the BBC and Nokia. Bang&Olafson also
> use
> them"
> Which "them".? DBT is not ABX. ABX is one particular derivative of
> DBTs.
> Re BBC 1) You never, never, never posted any "work done by the BBC"
> mentioning ABX. I hate to call you an unscrupulous, inveterate liar..
> All you have to do to nail me is to REPOST 2) you sent me on a wild
> goose chase in a 10 year catalogue of hundreds of articles about
> anything under the sun published by the BBC 3) none of them mentioning
> ABX.
> Re Nokia (A Finnish cellphone company) Quote a precise reference to
> ABX being used in audio component comparison by Nokia
> Re B&O: The only site I wasted time looking for and found discusses
> propagation of sound. No mention of DBT: no component comparison
> I asked:
>
>> Could you quote the reference to where they published the results of
>> that "use"? You know of course that without such a checkable reference
>> you're only gossiping- good enough for RAO I suppose but unworthy of a
>> scientist like you.
> NYOB answers: "I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. Why not
> check the JAES for their articles or write to Sean personally?"
>
> I said: > And of course it would be about comparing components because
> that is
>> what a lay audio forum is interested in.
> His "answer": "It might be or might not be since as has been
> mentioned some work is done on
> circuit changes to existing equipment to see if made any difference."
>
> Yes and Newton investigated sound waves too. But this is about the ABX
> use in ... etc. etc.
>
> I said: > And of course there would be a few postive results; the
> panels had no
>> problem distinguishing the components from each other.
>> Ludovic Mirabel
> NYOB:: "Do your onw research. Write to Sean and express your
> concerns. I'm sure he can give you better leads than I can.
> Unless of course, you are as abrasive with him and as loose with the
> truth as you've been here".
>
> Words fail me: You persist in showing an incredible combination of
> bloody cheek with mind-shaking stupidity. Or cold you believe that
> everyone else is an idiot?
> YOU say YOU have a method for showing differences between speakers.
> Have you ever heard what the word *evidence* means?. Of course you have
> no evidence, .because none exists.. But you have the audacity to send
> me to find your imaginary, evidence for you. And an incredible lack of
> courtesy to a busy man directing people to "Sean" ( we ARE
> familiar aren't we?) to ask him to search for it.
> What's more this is the second time you're doing this.
> NYOB - others lost patience with you before me - and no wonder.
> I said it before but this time I'll stick to it. Till you have
> something sensible- like real evidence- to say I'll just repost this
> as an answer to this kind of obnoxious silliness
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

Since evidence is meaningless to you, you post any ****ing thing you want.
If you really cared to find any instead of making specious claims about how
o such results exist, I might give a ****.

You can lead a man to knowldege, but you can't make him think.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
>