November 28th 06, 08:36 AM
Act 1
Prologue
A. Krueger promotes a listening test- and a gadget to go with it. The
"test" is for differentiating between audio components "objectively".
He does not go the usual route of proponents of new tests. He does not
submit a research paper validating his "test" to the editors of a
professional journal
Scene 1
A series of articles in the pop audio press appear in the eighties (
and none since). Cables, preamps, amps ,dacs are listened to with
uniform result: "They all sound the same"
Questions are raised: does ABX have a bias towards preventing
differentiation?
Scene 2
Simultaneously an ABX website is developed containing some "research"
material. This research stays on the website because it is too
amateurish to pass the editors of a professional journal.
The only "positive" tests are between components so glaringly different
by measurements or in one instance by damage that the diagnosis could
be better made from behind closed doors without the ABX fuss and
bother..
Scene 3
Over the years I have been asking A. Krueger for the address of one
single paper validating his ABX listening method for comparing audio
components that would merit publication in a professional journal
Validating means showing that it works to do its job. . After sending
me on several wild goose chases he now produces the 1982 David Clark's
paper.
Act 2
I got it.:
Pages 1, 2 and 3: discuss various testing methods and how the ABX was
developed .
Pages 4, 5 and 6: description and schematics of the ABX switching
gadget.
Page 7 : photos and block diagrams.
Page 8: lists "Applications": frequency and level differences,
distortion level with schematics of another gadget for this purpose. :
Twelve proposed applications for ABX testing. clipping, phase
coherence etc.
NOT ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS AND NO AUDIO
COMPONENTS COMPARISONS.
Curtain:
With this "contribution" Arnold Krueger silently conceded that ABX for
comparing components was stillborn but never had a decent burial.
Perhaps he hoped that no one would check.
Ludovic Mirabel
Prologue
A. Krueger promotes a listening test- and a gadget to go with it. The
"test" is for differentiating between audio components "objectively".
He does not go the usual route of proponents of new tests. He does not
submit a research paper validating his "test" to the editors of a
professional journal
Scene 1
A series of articles in the pop audio press appear in the eighties (
and none since). Cables, preamps, amps ,dacs are listened to with
uniform result: "They all sound the same"
Questions are raised: does ABX have a bias towards preventing
differentiation?
Scene 2
Simultaneously an ABX website is developed containing some "research"
material. This research stays on the website because it is too
amateurish to pass the editors of a professional journal.
The only "positive" tests are between components so glaringly different
by measurements or in one instance by damage that the diagnosis could
be better made from behind closed doors without the ABX fuss and
bother..
Scene 3
Over the years I have been asking A. Krueger for the address of one
single paper validating his ABX listening method for comparing audio
components that would merit publication in a professional journal
Validating means showing that it works to do its job. . After sending
me on several wild goose chases he now produces the 1982 David Clark's
paper.
Act 2
I got it.:
Pages 1, 2 and 3: discuss various testing methods and how the ABX was
developed .
Pages 4, 5 and 6: description and schematics of the ABX switching
gadget.
Page 7 : photos and block diagrams.
Page 8: lists "Applications": frequency and level differences,
distortion level with schematics of another gadget for this purpose. :
Twelve proposed applications for ABX testing. clipping, phase
coherence etc.
NOT ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT COMPARING AUDIO COMPONENTS AND NO AUDIO
COMPONENTS COMPARISONS.
Curtain:
With this "contribution" Arnold Krueger silently conceded that ABX for
comparing components was stillborn but never had a decent burial.
Perhaps he hoped that no one would check.
Ludovic Mirabel