Left-right method for comparing components at home

[[email protected]]

My approach centers frankly on preference. An
audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice.
Concentrating on difference the attention goes astray

Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and
right side are desirable very exact levelling is not necessary (see
explanation below).

Other common sense precautions are: compare like with like:
testing a 400watt amp against a 5 watt SET is waste of time.

You can not compare signal source against signal source this
way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against a turntable.

You cannot compare speakers because that requires special
facilities for moving them fast to an exact position . (Same limitetion
applies to ABX testing.

You can compare interconnects, power cables and power
controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs.
An obliging partner is a necessity.

The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it is
SIMULTANEOUS.
(while comparing turn your head from side to side as much as you
like).


1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal
source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.

2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in
the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to
preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.)

3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.

4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components
from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are
keeping the records.

5) The random change is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of
time (and with
interval for lunch if you like). EVERY TIME you note your
preference
The repetition and change from side to side are the CRUX.

At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room sides differ,
levels differ subtly etc.

Answer;If there are differences between room sides, speaker volumes
etc. and yet you still prefer and locate one of the two component as
it moves from side to side surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes?
no?

Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still
have a statistically significant positive results: "I prefer the sound
of this preamp on EITHER side." (inspite of bad room effect on one of
them)

If you have no preference give the component back to the shop. If
there is any difference it is not one that matters to you
-at least at this stage of your musical experience and preference.

NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method
that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me
and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only
use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias.

Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com


> My approach centers frankly on preference.

To tell the truth, Mirabel's "approach" is like much that Mirabel does: It
centers on confusion.

> An audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice.
> Concentrating on difference the attention goes astray.

??????????

> Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and
> right side are desirable very exact levelling is not
> necessary (see explanation below).

True - when one's thinking is this confused, why bother to try to refine it
something as technical and exact as level matching.

> Other common sense precautions are: compare like with
> like:
> testing a 400watt amp against a 5 watt SET is waste of
> time.
>
> You can not compare signal source against signal source
> this
> way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against
> a turntable.
>
> You cannot compare speakers because that requires special
> facilities for moving them fast to an exact position .
> (Same limitetion applies to ABX testing.
>
> You can compare interconnects, power cables and power
> controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs.
> An obliging partner is a necessity.
>
> The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it
> is SIMULTANEOUS.
> (while comparing turn your head from side to side as much
> as you like).
>
>
> 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred
> soprano) signal source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
>
> 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the
> OTHER ONE- (in the case of interconnects using two of one
> kind together i.e.source to preamp and preamp to amp on
> each side will give better contrast.)
>
> 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
>
> 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both
> components from one side to the other or (of course)
> leaves them where they are keeping the records.
>
> 5) The random change is repeated minimum 15 times- for
> any length of time (and with
> interval for lunch if you like). EVERY TIME you note your
> preference
> The repetition and change from side to side are the CRUX.
>
> At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room
> sides differ, levels differ subtly etc.
>
> Answer;If there are differences between room sides,
> speaker volumes etc. and yet you still prefer and locate
> one of the two component as it moves from side to side
> surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes? no?

IOW, this is a procedure that masks possible differences between components
by adding audible differences related to the room asymmetry, etc.

> Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but
> you still
> have a statistically significant positive results: "I
> prefer the sound of this preamp on EITHER side." (inspite
> of bad room effect on one of them)

Gag. Here's a radical idea - audition components using a system that is as
free as possible of readily audible flaws.

> If you have no preference give the component back to
> the shop. If there is any difference it is not one that
> matters to you -at least at this stage of your musical
> experience and preference.

How does one develop a preference based on small differences if both
components are playing at the same time?

> NB. This is not a universally applicable "test".

Because it is sighted, it is not a test at all.

> It is a method
> that suits me because it involves no memory feats that
> are beyond me and many others. I have no universal
> "scientific" pretensions. I only use it to reassure
> myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias.

Rassurance that he's not delusional is clearly something that Mirabel needs
quite a bit of. Of course, it misses the obvious point - that Mirabel is
pretty delusional much of the time.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
>
> > My approach centers frankly on preference.
>
> To tell the truth, Mirabel's "approach" is like much that Mirabel does: It
> centers on confusion.
>
> > An audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice.
> > Concentrating on difference the attention goes astray.
>
> ??????????
>
> > Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and
> > right side are desirable very exact levelling is not
> > necessary (see explanation below).
>
> True - when one's thinking is this confused, why bother to try to refine it
> something as technical and exact as level matching.
>
> > Other common sense precautions are: compare like with
> > like:
> > testing a 400watt amp against a 5 watt SET is waste of
> > time.
> >
> > You can not compare signal source against signal source
> > this
> > way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against
> > a turntable.
> >
> > You cannot compare speakers because that requires special
> > facilities for moving them fast to an exact position .
> > (Same limitetion applies to ABX testing.
> >
> > You can compare interconnects, power cables and power
> > controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs.
> > An obliging partner is a necessity.
> >
> > The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it
> > is SIMULTANEOUS.
> > (while comparing turn your head from side to side as much
> > as you like).
> >
> >
> > 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred
> > soprano) signal source. MUSICAL, not an artefact.
> >
> > 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the
> > OTHER ONE- (in the case of interconnects using two of one
> > kind together i.e.source to preamp and preamp to amp on
> > each side will give better contrast.)
> >
> > 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded.
> >
> > 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both
> > components from one side to the other or (of course)
> > leaves them where they are keeping the records.
> >
> > 5) The random change is repeated minimum 15 times- for
> > any length of time (and with
> > interval for lunch if you like). EVERY TIME you note your
> > preference
> > The repetition and change from side to side are the CRUX.
> >
> > At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room
> > sides differ, levels differ subtly etc.
> >
> > Answer;If there are differences between room sides,
> > speaker volumes etc. and yet you still prefer and locate
> > one of the two component as it moves from side to side
> > surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes? no?
>
> IOW, this is a procedure that masks possible differences between components
> by adding audible differences related to the room asymmetry, etc.
>
> > Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but
> > you still
> > have a statistically significant positive results: "I
> > prefer the sound of this preamp on EITHER side." (inspite
> > of bad room effect on one of them)
>
> Gag. Here's a radical idea - audition components using a system that is as
> free as possible of readily audible flaws.
>
> > If you have no preference give the component back to
> > the shop. If there is any difference it is not one that
> > matters to you -at least at this stage of your musical
> > experience and preference.
>
> How does one develop a preference based on small differences if both
> components are playing at the same time?
>
> > NB. This is not a universally applicable "test".
>
> Because it is sighted, it is not a test at all.
>
> > It is a method
> > that suits me because it involves no memory feats that
> > are beyond me and many others. I have no universal
> > "scientific" pretensions. I only use it to reassure
> > myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias.
>
> Rassurance that he's not delusional is clearly something that Mirabel needs
> quite a bit of. Of course, it misses the obvious point - that Mirabel is
> pretty delusional much of the time.

================================================== ============

I can think of dozens of further theoretical objections to the way I
find convenient to compare components blinded at home. No switches ,
no web site, no marketing, no claims to "objective, scientific testing"

It suits me. The results I get are not anyone else's results. If I hear
a difference using left-right method the difference exists for me. If
someone else does not his results are valid for him.

But it does not always have one result and one result only: Itl does
not make it all sound the same.

Krueger is not alone. Best Buy would not care for it either
Ludovic Mirabel




It is not a test. Eveyone's