Better Than ABX?

[R. Stanton]

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
most
similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
consider
the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

I am proposing a new test. Let us call it: the X-Y test.

The computer selects (randomly) one of the following four
combinations
of signals, AA, BB, AB, BA, and sends it to switches X and Y. In
this
test, the subject uses only two switches. He does an AB comparison of
the two sounds and notes if they are the same, or different.

Sources

B --------------
. .
Switches
A --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- X
B --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- Y
A --------------

B --------------

B --------------

After each trial, the computer records the answer, then randomly
selects another pair of signals to go to switches X and Y. The trials
continue until a reasonable accuracy is achieved.

How the test is scored:

The answers to all trials (AA, BB, AB, BA) are counted. Answers are
scored the same way as ABX system scores answers.

What if someone tries to cheat?

Suppose someone tried to cheat by putting down a false answer, such
as:
"heard difference" when she actually didn't hear a difference? It
wouldn't work.

1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score of of 50%
correct.

A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not* hear a
difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the ABX
test,
and would give a more accurate indication of someones ability to hear
a
difference in the components.

Bob Stanton

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg clanked:

> ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.

Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"R. Stanton" > wrote:

> Better than ABX?
>
> ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
> It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
> complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
> between components.
>
> The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
> A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
> randomly by
> machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
> decides if X matches A or matches B.
>
> Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
> we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
> most
> similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
> consider
> the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
> for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
> great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
> got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> When participating in an ABX test[sic], can one, for example, listen to the
> same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> same passage of music?

No you cannot, but you are, of course, free to gouge out your eyeballs at
any time.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

"R. Stanton" > said:

> Better than ABX?


Yup.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Enjoying is irrelevant. Preferences will be assimilated. You are
noncompliant with the Hive. You will be terminated.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

R. Stanton wrote:
> Better than ABX?
>
> ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
> It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
> complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
> between components.
>
> The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
> A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
> randomly by
> machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
> decides if X matches A or matches B.

IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
seen touted from time to time.
Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
their different....pick A.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
> listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
> as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
> say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
> music?

Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
when you switch; it is up to the listener.

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

> Better than ABX?
>
"Better" than what?


> ABX has become the standard test for comparison
> of audio components.
>
Based on the periodicals that I'm aware over the last 30
years, no manufacture or audio magazine has ever used
ABX in product development or reviews. To imply
"standard" is to denote a battery of protocols in its use.
There are none to date do to a whole raft of
limitations/unknowns.


> It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it.
>
That depends on the application. It is most successful when
differences can be detected as a result of its use. But it is
of no statistical practicality/significance when you generate
null data. Only proving that one can in fact discern the
difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


> Their complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to
> hear differences between components.
>
True, but this doesn't necessarily rule out the device. One
must consider the psychological disposition, hearing acuity
and training of the subjects. There are many "standards"
(cross-checks) to limit or isolate the human influence
variable per say, but it is very expensive.


> What if someone tries to cheat?
>
That's why the sample group size is significant.


> 1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give
> a score of 50% correct.
>
Ok


> 2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
> of 50% correct.
>
This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


> 3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score
> of of 50% correct.
>
Ok... or the model wasn't designed suitably for the task
at hand.


> A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not*
> hear a difference. So cheating wouldn't work.
>
"*not* hear a difference"... an actual difference could
exist but the methodology may not be statistically sensitive
enough to discern it from the data.


> I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the
> ABX test, and would give a more accurate indication of
> someones ability to hear a difference in the components.
>
Maybe, maybe not.

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
> Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better

About time too!





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
> Better than ABX?
>
> ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.


LOL!!!!!

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 1:52 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> R. Stanton wrote:
> > Better than ABX?
>
> > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
> > It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
> > complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
> > between components.
>
> > The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
> > A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
> > randomly by
> > machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
> > decides if X matches A or matches B. IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
> listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
> seen touted from time to time.
> Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
> then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
> their different....pick A.
>
When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg droned:

> When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
> that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
>same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
>example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
>same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
to be heard.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 9:51 am, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg clanked:
>
> > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.
>
> Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
> torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
> yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
> paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
> that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
> the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?
>
> We want to know it all, R.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
Proverbs 26:5?

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg pretends to piety.

> > Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
> > torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
> > yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
> > paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
> > that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
> > the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

> > We want to know it all, R.

> Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
> Proverbs 26:5?

The main point is that you have never once undergone an aBxism ritual.
You've probably never even seen one of the dread torture boxes up close.
You're nothing but a Hivie troll, sent to RAO, probably on the orders of the
maniacal Dr. Not, to deflect attention from the Krooborg.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> "R. Stanton" > said:
>
> > Better than ABX?
>
>
> Yup.
>
> Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.
>
>
Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.


> --
> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

wrote:

> Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
> Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better

I've come to that same conclusion re: toopid.

[George M. Middius]

Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.

> > Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

> Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
> might be worth paying for.

"Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
> > listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
> > as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
> > say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
> > music?
>
> Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
> double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
> when you switch; it is up to the listener.

Great, thanks for the answer.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> >same passage of music?
>
> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

>
> Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
> whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
> to be heard.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Great, thanks for the answer.

No, you may not borrow Arnii's aBxism torture box.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>> When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
>>> example, listen to the same passage of music for as
>>> long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
>>> listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
>>> same passage of music?
>>
>> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>
> I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
> question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 7:24 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg droned:
>
> > When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
> > that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> R. Stanton a scris:
>
> > Better than ABX?
>
> > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >>> When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
> >>> example, listen to the same passage of music for as
> >>> long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
> >>> listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> >>> same passage of music?
> >>
> >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >
> > I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
> > question. See how it works?
>
> I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

Nope, I had a question about something that I don't know about and I
asked someone who would know. I understand that it's an odd concept and
all. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg has no compunctions about his immoral agenda.

> > > How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

> Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
> tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

Why?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> dizzy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
>>>>> example, listen to the same passage of music for as
>>>>> long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
>>>>> listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
>>>>> same passage of music?
>>>>
>>>> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject.
>>>> Not.
>>>
>>> I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
>>> question. See how it works?
>>
>> I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something
>> to do. ;-)
>
> Nope, I had a question about something that I don't know
> about and I asked someone who would know.

That certainly puts you miles ahead of Morein, who wants to act like he
knows it all, and goes out of his way to avoid asking someone who would
know. He asks Atkinson who only works first-rate rooms with first-rate
equipment and first-rate performers, instead of someone who is more like
what he does, someone who works a variety of rooms, with a variety of
equipment, and with a variety of performers.

> I understand that it's an odd concept and all. ;-)

Hey this is RAO. As long as the Middiot and his clique dominate it, you're
right - asking someone who does know about what you don't know about is a
very strange thing to do here.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 9:40 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg has no compunctions about his immoral agenda.
>
> > > > How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?
> > Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
> > tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)Why?
>
>
So that I can communicate with interesting people like you and
Arny. Maybe I should get a life. :-)

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg deviates from Hivie protocols.

> > > > > How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

> > > Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
> > > tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

> > Why?

> So that I can communicate with interesting people like you

Sarcasm from a 'borg? How para-human of you.

> Maybe I should get a life. :-)

First, fix your newsreader.

Second, admit the truth about the nonsense you posted ("aBx is the gold
standard..." etc.). Admit it was a troll. Otherwise, you've lowered yourself
so far that your only intellectual peer is duh-Mikey McBugEater.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 9:11 am, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg deviates from Hivie protocols.
>
> > > > > > How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?
> > > > Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
> > > > tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)
> > > Why?
> > So that I can communicate with interesting people like youSarcasm from a 'borg? How para-human of you.
>
> > Maybe I should get a life. :-)First, fix your newsreader.
>
> Second, admit the truth about the nonsense you posted ("aBx is the gold
> standard..." etc.). Admit it was a troll. Otherwise, you've lowered yourself
> so far that your only intellectual peer is duh-Mikey McBugEater.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be better, than
ABX.

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
town. It is the defacto standard.

[Arny Krueger]

"R. Stanton" > wrote in message
oups.com

> It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be
> better, than ABX.
>
> Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the
> only game in town. It is the defacto standard.

Nope, AFAIK ABC/hr is the far more commonly-used methodology these days.
Check ITU recommendation BS 1116, for example. OK, so there are only about
21,000 google hits. That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

said:


>> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


>It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
>capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
>may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
>but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)


Ooh, a joke, made of solid concrete.

Neat.
Almost wetted my pants there, NoT! ;-).


Now do your impression of a drooling nerd when confronted with an
image of a Cray computer ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
> On Dec 7, 9:11 am, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]





>
> Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
> town. It is the defacto standard.

Just like a Krooturd

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> said:
>
>
> >> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
>
>
> >It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
> >capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
> >may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.
>
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).
>
> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
> sub to go with it.

Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.

I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.

--
Bill

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg said:

> Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
> town. It is the defacto standard.

The "standard" that nobody ever uses? Including you, by your own admission.
What are you smoking?

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said to The Big ****:

> Now do your impression of a drooling nerd when confronted with an
> image of a Cray computer ;-)

"Been there done, that."





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger"

>> I understand that it's an odd concept and all. ;-)
>
> Hey this is RAO. As long as the Middiot and his clique
> dominate it, you're right - asking someone who does know
> about what you don't know about is a very strange thing
> to do here.
>
On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny. Aren't you
being hypocritical about you own advice "asking someone
who does know about what you don't know"?

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

>> > Better than ABX?
>>
>> > ABX has become the standard test for comparison
>> > of audio components.LOL!!!!!
>
> What is the standard for comparison tests?
>
In home auditioning has always been the "standard"
audiophile response. Beyond that one has to consider
the equipment (source, amplifier, speaker) under
evaluation before determining methodology.

But your question does not consider the human
emotional response ("comparison tests") which is
the ultimate arbitrator... or at least the one most
closely associated with your wallet. :)

[Sander deWaal]

Bill Riel > said:


>> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
>> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
>> sub to go with it.


>Hi Sander,

>I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
>almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
>some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
>classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
>be a tremendously immersive experience.



I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.


>I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
>instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

>If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
>movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
>sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
>know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.


That is also possible, but seldom the case.
I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
frustrating IMO.

With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
ridiculous.
James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
pictures start falling from the wall.


>Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
>about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
>experience with the right source & setup imo.


Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
music.

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.
>
> > > Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.
>
> > Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
> > might be worth paying for.
>
> "Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.

Is not2cool4u named Scott? or are you too senile to know who you're
responding too?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
> "R. Stanton" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be
> > better, than ABX.
> >
> > Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the
> > only game in town. It is the defacto standard.
>
> Nope, AFAIK ABC/hr is the far more commonly-used methodology these days.
> Check ITU recommendation BS 1116, for example. OK, so there are only about
> 21,000 google hits. That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
> but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)

Arny chastises the lesser borgs!

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message


> On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
> professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
> developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
> Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
> a few of the industry periodicals also help."

> These are words you never lived by, Arny.

Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
24/7?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
>> professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
>> developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
>> Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
>> a few of the industry periodicals also help."

>> These are words you never lived by, Arny.


>Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
>attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
>periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
>24/7?


Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that no one is out there to
get you, Arns ;-)

BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
seem to know it. Thank you.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Jenn]

In article >,
Sander deWaal > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
> >> On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
> >> professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
> >> developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
> >> Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
> >> a few of the industry periodicals also help."
>
> >> These are words you never lived by, Arny.
>
>
> >Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
> >attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
> >periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
> >24/7?
>
>
> Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that no one is out there to
> get you, Arns ;-)
>
> BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
> seem to know it. Thank you.

"Obviously Arny doesn't care about accuracy..."

[Bill Riel]

Sander wrote:

> I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
> possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
> always *their* way.
>
> I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
> a.....well, a shovel ;-)
>
> This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
> audio.
>
> Please, read my posts in that context.
> I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
> as gospel, in the future.

Hey Sander, I can totally respect where you're coming from - and no
worries, you do a better job than most of not being dogmatic about your
opinions. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Cheers,

Bill

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
> "Powell" > wrote in message
>
>
> > On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
> > professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
> > developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
> > Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
> > a few of the industry periodicals also help."
>
> > These are words you never lived by, Arny.
>
> Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
> attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
> periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
> 24/7?

He got a report from Boon.

[Sander deWaal]

Bill Riel > said:


>Hey Sander, I can totally respect where you're coming from - and no
>worries, you do a better job than most of not being dogmatic about your
>opinions. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.


Well, thanks anyway.
Keeps me sharp ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg gets into a huff.

> Powell, how can you say that I've never
> attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
> periodicals?

Lack of affirmative declaration noted. This is a classic "debating trade"
dodge. We now know with absolutely certainty that you never did any of the
above.

Besides, they all cost money. QED.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >Delusions of omnisicence noted.

> BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
> seem to know it. Thank you.

It's one of Arnii's $1,000 words for feces.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > BTW what does "omnisicence" mean, Webster's Online Dictionary doesn't
> > seem to know it. Thank you.

> "Obviously Arny doesn't care about accuracy..."

You're going to make him cry. Can you live with that?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> said:
>
>
> >> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
>
>
> >It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
> >capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
> >may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.
>
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).
>
> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
> sub to go with it.
>
Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not? If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.

As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.

I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.

Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.
I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.

> Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
> up 5.1 system.
> I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.
>
> Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
> with the standard.
>
>
Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.
> --
As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.

A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 2:24 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg said:
>
> > Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
> > town. It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses? Including you, by your own admission.
> What are you smoking?
>
> Fix your newsreader, 'borg.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

What do you consider the standard, or are you just against all unbiased
testing?

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 5:17 pm, " > wrote:
> Powell wrote:
> > "R. Stanton" wrote
>
> > > Better than ABX?
>
> > "Better" than what?
>
> > > ABX has become the standard test for comparison
> > > of audio components.
>
> > Based on the periodicals that I'm aware over the last 30
> > years, no manufacture or audio magazine has ever used
> > ABX in product development or reviews. To imply
> > "standard" is to denote a battery of protocols in its use.
> > There are none to date do to a whole raft of
> > limitations/unknowns.
>
> > > It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it.
>
> > That depends on the application. It is most successful when
> > differences can be detected as a result of its use. But it is
> > of no statistical practicality/significance when you generate
> > null data. Only proving that one can in fact discern the
> > difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).
>
> > > Their complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to
> > > hear differences between components.
>
> > True, but this doesn't necessarily rule out the device. One
> > must consider the psychological disposition, hearing acuity
> > and training of the subjects. There are many "standards"
> > (cross-checks) to limit or isolate the human influence
> > variable per say, but it is very expensive.
>
> > > What if someone tries to cheat?
>
> > That's why the sample group size is significant.
>
> > > 1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give
> > > a score of 50% correct.
>
> > Ok
>
> > > 2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
> > > of 50% correct.
>
> > This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
> > discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).
>
> > > 3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score
> > > of of 50% correct.
>
> > Ok... or the model wasn't designed suitably for the task
> > at hand.
>
> > > A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not*
> > > hear a difference. So cheating wouldn't work.
>
> > "*not* hear a difference"... an actual difference could
> > exist but the methodology may not be statistically sensitive
> > enough to discern it from the data.
>
> > > I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the
> > > ABX test, and would give a more accurate indication of
> > > someones ability to hear a difference in the components.
>
> > Maybe, maybe not.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Powell answers R. Stanton
>
> > > 2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
> > > of 50% correct.
>
> > This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
> > discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).I don't have to tell you that this was pointed out to the ABX crowd
> many times before. It never made any difference and it will not make
> any now.
>
> There is ongoing attraction in the notion that "science" is on your
> side. It showis that what you can not hear does not exist..
>
> Mr. Stanton's "improvements" are a case in point.
>
> Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
> Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better
> Ludovic Mirabel

Science is not on your side, if you don't understand science.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg needs a smackdown.

> > > It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?

> > Fix your newsreader, 'borg.

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

said:


>> >> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


>> >It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
>> >capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
>> >may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


>> Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

>> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
>> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
>> sub to go with it.


>Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
>matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not?


Hold that thought, we have that in common..
I get that with tube amps.
Inaccurate, coloring, power-limited tube amps.

And vinyl, of course.


> If
>you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
>flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
>versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.


Yup.
And I specifically said "listening to MUSIC in the above.

I don't do movies, just Stargate episodes ;-)


>As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
>produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
>of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
>sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


>When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
>arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
>trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
>done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
>channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
>doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
>determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


>I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
>impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
>music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
>but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.


Yup, ranging from Bach to breakbeat and inbetween.


>Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
>there isn't more of it IMO.


Aye, here lies the rub.
And of the music I have heard that was in surround, it mostly was
either uninspiring effects music, or bad recording.

I don't know if you have any recording experience, but it can be hard
enough to make a fine *stereo* recording, let alone more channels.
Unless one just pans some mics to the rear etc......not my idea of a
good recording.

Most releaes are also film soundtracks, boombastic and unrealistic.
Example: pirates of the carribean..


>I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
>War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
>Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
>in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
>concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.


Films again, just not my thing.
I was addressing good old music here.

Concert videos are even worse: the eye is kept busy, so they can wreck
the audio recording without too much protesting ;-)


>> Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
>> up 5.1 system.
>> I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

>> Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
>> with the standard.


>Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
>choice.


That's a very likely possibility.

Let's keep it at that, then.


>As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
>far between.


I found there's far more interesting and valuable material in old
fashioned 2 channel, even mono doesn't bother me much.
Listening to music in multi channel just doesn't do it for me.

Let alone have your decoder process a 2-channel signal to match all
speakers...........argh.

YMMV ;-)


>A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
>depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
>places where the movie is set.


Movies again..............my arguments are restricted to music only.

For movies, the effect is nice.
The eye is entertained, the ear doesn't protest.

Well, to each his own, I guess.
While I was working at this PC this night, the Maggies were playing
Bach's Brandenburg Concertoes by I Musici and Frans Bruggen.

The listening position is slightly out of the sweet spot when I'm at
the PC, but the enjoyment was there, nevertheless.
meanwhile, I finished a PCB for my new DAC project, and had some fun
reading forums.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 5:30 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg needs a smackdown.
>
> > > > It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?
> > > Fix your newsreader, 'borg.Fix your newsreader, 'borg.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 5:30 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net> wrote:
> StantonBorg needs a smackdown.
>
> > > > It is the defacto standard.The "standard" that nobody ever uses?
> > > Fix your newsreader, 'borg.Fix your newsreader, 'borg.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Do it irritate you George?

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> said:
>

>snip<

>
>
>>As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
>>produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
>>of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
>>sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.
>
>
> It certainly can be, when implemented well.
> Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
> IMO.
>
> I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
> subs.
> In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
> I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.
>
>
>>When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
>>arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
>>trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
>>done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
>>channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
>>doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
>>determined optimum.
>
>
> I'll wait for that to happen.
> Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.
>
> Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
yourself with a similar setup.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
> On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > R. Stanton a scris:
> >
> > > Better than ABX?
> >
> > > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!
>
> What is the standard for comparison tests?

Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Bill Riel > said:
>
>
> >> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
> >> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
> >> sub to go with it.
>
>
> >Hi Sander,
>
> >I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
> >almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
> >some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
> >classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
> >be a tremendously immersive experience.
>
>
>
> I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
> That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.
>
>
> >I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
> >instruments get mixed to the surrounds.
>
> >If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
> >movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
> >sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
> >know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.
>
>
> That is also possible, but seldom the case.
> I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
> frustrating IMO.
>
> With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
> ridiculous.
> James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
> pictures start falling from the wall.
>
>
> >Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
> >about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
> >experience with the right source & setup imo.
>
>
> Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
> it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
> music.
>
> I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
> possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
> always *their* way.
>
> I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
> a.....well, a shovel ;-)
>
> This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
> audio.
>
> Please, read my posts in that context.
> I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
> as gospel, in the future.
> --
> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
===========================

I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
ridiculous and disturbing. .

Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Bill Riel > said:
>
>
> >> I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
> >> I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
> >> sub to go with it.
>
>
> >Hi Sander,
>
> >I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
> >almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
> >some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
> >classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
> >be a tremendously immersive experience.
>
>
>
> I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
> That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.
>
>
> >I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
> >instruments get mixed to the surrounds.
>
> >If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
> >movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
> >sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
> >know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.
>
>
> That is also possible, but seldom the case.
> I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
> frustrating IMO.
>
> With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
> ridiculous.
> James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
> pictures start falling from the wall.
>
>
> >Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
> >about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
> >experience with the right source & setup imo.
>
>
> Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
> it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
> music.
>
> I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
> possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
> always *their* way.
>
> I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
> a.....well, a shovel ;-)
>
> This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
> audio.
>
> Please, read my posts in that context.
> I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
> as gospel, in the future.
> --
> - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -
===========================

I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
ridiculous and disturbing. .

Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

LD said:

> > What is the standard for comparison tests?

> Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
> genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
> aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
> all different, thank God.

It is precisely because humans "are all different" that audio 'borgism is
the perfect cure for audiophilia. Join the Hive today and become an
indistinguishable (and undistinguishing) drone.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " > wrote:
> R. Stanton wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > R. Stanton a scris:
>
> > > > Better than ABX?
>
> > > > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!
>
> > What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
> genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
> aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
> all different, thank God.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:


>
> We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
> preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
> preception with audio equipment.
>
> Your reasoning is completely backwards!


go the full mile why bother with humans at all
they are completeli irrelevant.

[Sander deWaal]

"Harry Lavo" > said:


>> Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


>Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
>large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
>specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
>surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
>configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
>yourself with a similar setup.


I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).

But it seems like a nice enough setup.

I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.

All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
Maggies).

Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
badass stereo tube amps.

I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
disappointing results.
I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>I agree with you about the average movie house sound these days. It is
>too loud most of the time, and the surround effect is too often between
>ridiculous and disturbing. .

>Having said that I go back to my JVC XP 1000 (no longer made) to get an
>illusion closer to a real symphony orchestra than I get from stereo.


Delusion's of, knowlege about audio, noted. LOL!

Wahtever float's your bote, Ludo, NOt! ;-)


Enjoy!


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Harry Lavo]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > said:
>
>
>>> Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.
>
>
>>Sander, are you aware that Harry Pearson's reference surround system uses
>>large Maggies in the front, and the center and wall-mounted little Maggies
>>specifically designed for surround? He claims he's never heard a better
>>surround system. If you've got the space, and can set up the proper
>>configuration of speakers (ITU) and seating, I suspect you would surprise
>>yourself with a similar setup.
>
>
> I didn' t know that about HP (in fact, I haven't kept track of any
> home- audio magazine or their editors/reviewers since a long time).
>
> But it seems like a nice enough setup.
>
> I have 4 MG1 improved speakers in the main system, mounted together
> like some weird kind of Tympani. ;-)
> 2 SMGA-s are used in a second stereo system.
>
> All I'd need is a Magneplanar center to finish a complete surround
> set. (no subwoofers, please. There's plenty off bass in 4 big
> Maggies).
>
> Hmmm........I'm tempted to try this out.
> I can buy a DTS/Dolby soundcard and use it as a source to supply 3
> badass stereo tube amps.
>
> I'm just afraid the dispersion pattern of a SMGA mounted vertically as
> a center speaker, won't be satisfying .
> I went that route when adjusting the sound with the big Maggies, with
> disappointing results.
> I tried to imitate the stacked Quad setup that ML introduced, but with
> the radiation pattern and size of the MG1i, this can't be successfull.

I don't know about a soundcard, but many SACD players and DVD-A players
allow you to configure with no center channel, keeping the virtual center
channel you currently have. Only problem I can see with that is that you
can't do it without switching into the PCM mode, which tends to choke off
the extremely fine ambience hearable in straight DSD decoding. But since
your soundcard would be PCM to begin with, if it allows you to configure
that way, you'd have a solution. 'Course, the used Sony C2000ES available
on Audiogon for $225 would do it a lot better.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " > wrote:
> > R. Stanton wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > R. Stanton a scris:
> >
> > > > > Better than ABX?
> >
> > > > > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!
> >
> > > What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
> > genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
> > aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
> > all different, thank God.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
> beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
> well different people precieve differences in sound.)
>
> We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
> preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
> preception with audio equipment.
>
> Your reasoning is completely backwards!

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

If I understand you we're in complete agreement:

You say:
> We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
> preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
> preception with audio equipment.
>
Just make it more precise by writing "using ONE (instead of A) human
being's perceptions".( I hope you'll not think I'm pedantic when I
correct your spelling).
With results valid for that (A) One human being's set of perceptions
Regards Ludovic M.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 8, 1:40 pm, " > wrote:
> R. Stanton wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " > wrote:
> > > R. Stanton wrote:
> > > > On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> > > > > R. Stanton a scris:
>
> > > > > > Better than ABX?
>
> > > > > > ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!
>
> > > > What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
> > > genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
> > > aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
> > > all different, thank God.
> > > Ludovic Mirabel
>
> > Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
> > beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
> > well different people precieve differences in sound.)
>
> > We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
> > preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
> > preception with audio equipment.
>
> > Your reasoning is completely backwards!======================================== ===
>
> If I understand you we're in complete agreement:
>
> You say:> We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
> > preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
> > preception with audio equipment.Just make it more precise by writing "using ONE (instead of A) human
> being's perceptions".( I hope you'll not think I'm pedantic when I
> correct your spelling).
> With results valid for that (A) One human being's set of perceptions
> Regards Ludovic M.

I want to thank everyone who participated in "Better than ABX". I
have learned a lot from your comments. Many of you were very helpful,
and even to those of you who weren't very smart, thank you for having
the courage to put forth your opinions.

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>"Powell" > wrote:
>
>> These are words you never lived by, Arny.
>
>Delusions of omnisicence noted. Powell, how can you say that I've never
>attended seminars, visited trade shows, and read audio industry-related
>periodicals? Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch me
>24/7?

What nice people?

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
>> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
>> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
>> >same passage of music?
>>
>> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>
>I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
>works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
> >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> >> >same passage of music?
> >>
> >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >
> >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> >works?
>
> Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> you know...

Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
many angels could be accomodated on a headpin. Thoughts are fascinating
but results is what matters.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> > >works?

> > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> > you know...

> Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
> many angels could be accomodated on a headpin.

That was quaint. :-)

> Thoughts are fascinating but results is what matters.

The fact remains that nobody uses an aBxism box for anything. It's so far
from being the defacto standard, as Stantonborg speciously claimed, that
it's unknown outside of Usenet. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
The dimbulbs who always preach about aBxism have never tried it for
themselves. Not once. duh-Mikey has never seen one, nor has Stupey Sillybot,
nor has Stantonborg. Not Ferstler, not Bozoborg, nor any of the lesser
'borgs who flunked out of engineering school -- none of Them has any
hands-on experience whatsoever with aBxism. Only Krooger may or may not have
one in his possession, but in view of his untreated mental disability, it's
moot.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Ludo said:
>
> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> > > >works?
>
> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> > > you know...
>
> > Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
> > many angels could be accomodated on a headpin.
>
> That was quaint. :-)
>
> > Thoughts are fascinating but results is what matters.
>
> The fact remains that nobody uses an aBxism box for anything. It's so far
> from being the defacto standard, as Stantonborg speciously claimed, that
> it's unknown outside of Usenet. I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
> The dimbulbs who always preach about aBxism have never tried it for
> themselves. Not once. duh-Mikey has never seen one, nor has Stupey Sillybot,
> nor has Stantonborg. Not Ferstler, not Bozoborg, nor any of the lesser
> 'borgs who flunked out of engineering school -- none of Them has any
> hands-on experience whatsoever with aBxism. Only Krooger may or may not have
> one in his possession, but in view of his untreated mental disability, it's
> moot--
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

As you point out those who preach it for comparing audio components
don't use it themselves but they love the hearsay that it confirms
"scientifically" what they always have been feeling.: "It all sounds
the same" and the Best Buy is best.

The real researchers find one reason or another to skip it when
comparing components.(cf. Sean Olive in his classic loudspeaker
comparison).. They want a little more than one null sitting after
another.
Ludovic Mirabel.

Real researchers like Sean Olive don't use it for comparing audio
components.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
> >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> >> >same passage of music?
> >>
> >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >
> >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> >works?
>
> Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> you know...

You're not making sense.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> > you know...

> You're not making sense.

I think he's "joking". dippy is a former Kroopologist, you know. That means
his sanity and social skills are borderline at best.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> > > dizzy > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jenn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
> > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
> > >> >same passage of music?
> > >>
> > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> > >
> > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> > >works?
> >
> > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> > you know...
>
..
==========================
Jenn says:
> You're not making sense.

Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
as you like.

Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
put another random checkmark in one of the squares.

Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
all sound the same" outcome is assured.

But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
musical thinking.

Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > dizzy > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
> > > >> >the
> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with
> > > >> >the
> > > >> >same passage of music?
> > > >>
> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> > > >
> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> > > >works?
> > >
> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> > > you know...
> >
> .
> ==========================
> Jenn says:
> > You're not making sense.
>
> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
> as you like.
>
> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
>
> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
>
> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
> musical thinking.
>
> Ludovic Mirabel

I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> " > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jenn wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > dizzy > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
>> > > >> >the
>> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
>> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with
>> > > >> >the
>> > > >> >same passage of music?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>> > > >
>> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
>> > > >works?
>> > >
>> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
>> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
>> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
>> > > you know...
>> >
>> .
>> ==========================
>> Jenn says:
>> > You're not making sense.
>>
>> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
>> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
>> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
>> as you like.
>>
>> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
>> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
>> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
>>
>> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
>> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
>>
>> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
>> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
>> musical thinking.
>>
>> Ludovic Mirabel
>
> I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
> Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
> I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
> about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!

If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should...
they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX
are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

>
> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they should...
> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
> music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX
> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>
> ScottW

First of all, there is no box, hence there is no source selector.
People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
difference.
There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of
equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound
different/better than A, or that they
will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses.,
not at all adressing the perception of sameness.

Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test

environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes
normal sighted listening.

You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > " > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Jenn wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
> >> > > >> >the
> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
> >> > > >> >with
> >> > > >> >the
> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how
> >> > > >it
> >> > > >works?
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> >> > > you know...
> >> >
> >> .
> >> ==========================
> >> Jenn says:
> >> > You're not making sense.
> >>
> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
> >> as you like.
> >>
> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
> >>
> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
> >>
> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
> >> musical thinking.
> >>
> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >
> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!
>
> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
> should...
> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
> music, pink noise, etc.

That seems like a positive.

> People here ranting against ABX
> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.

Solutions to what?

[ScottW]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW a scris:
>
>>
>> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
>> should...
>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
>> music, pink noise, etc. People here ranting against ABX
>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> First of all, there is no box, hence there is no source selector.

Whats this (as one simple example)?

http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

> People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> difference.

People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.

I don't know where these other biases toward not hearing a difference
come from.

> There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of
> equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound
> different/better than A, or that they
> will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses.,

Eliminate the preference question and the first two possibilities become
one. You have 2 possibilities and 2 possible responses.

> not at all adressing the perception of sameness.

Sorry Art...what you describe is not an ABX test.
That a simple AB test as described here.
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

which does talk some about the difference bias.

I've never seen anyone indicate people are biased towards sameness.

>
> Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test
>
> environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes
> normal sighted listening.
>
> You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

From a consumer perspective I don't see a problem.
As a product developer/tester or researcher...there are questions
and unanswered questions usually pose a problem.
I'm not ever going to argue that AB or ABX are necessary
or even useful (worth the effort) for consumers.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article om>,
>> > " > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Jenn wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to
>> >> > > >> >the
>> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
>> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
>> >> > > >> >with
>> >> > > >> >the
>> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how
>> >> > > >it
>> >> > > >works?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
>> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
>> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
>> >> > > you know...
>> >> >
>> >> .
>> >> ==========================
>> >> Jenn says:
>> >> > You're not making sense.
>> >>
>> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
>> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
>> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
>> >> as you like.
>> >>
>> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
>> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
>> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
>> >>
>> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
>> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
>> >>
>> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
>> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
>> >> musical thinking.
>> >>
>> >> Ludovic Mirabel
>> >
>> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
>> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
>> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
>> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!
>>
>> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
>> should...
>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
>> music, pink noise, etc.
>
> That seems like a positive.
>
>> People here ranting against ABX
>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>
> Solutions to what?

To "the question" :). It does get kind of amusing at times that people
will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".

Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?
But that might settle this issue for all time...and then what would
RAO be?

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen
> >> >> > > >> >to
> >> >> > > >> >the
> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to?
> >> >> > > >> >For
> >> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
> >> >> > > >> >with
> >> >> > > >> >the
> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See
> >> >> > > >how
> >> >> > > >it
> >> >> > > >works?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not
> >> >> > > be
> >> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> >> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to
> >> >> > > it,
> >> >> > > you know...
> >> >> >
> >> >> .
> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> Jenn says:
> >> >> > You're not making sense.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
> >> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
> >> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
> >> >> as you like.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
> >> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
> >> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
> >> >>
> >> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
> >> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
> >> >>
> >> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
> >> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
> >> >> musical thinking.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >
> >> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
> >> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
> >> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
> >> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!
> >>
> >> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
> >> should...
> >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
> >> music, pink noise, etc.
> >
> > That seems like a positive.
> >
> >> People here ranting against ABX
> >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
> >
> > Solutions to what?
>
> To "the question" :). It does get kind of amusing at times that people
> will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
> obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".
>
> Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?

Why not?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > >> People here ranting against ABX
> > >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.

> > > Solutions to what?

> > To "the question" :).
> > Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?

> Why not?


I'll tell you why not: Because we're getting dangerously close to
Krooglishland. Questions don't have "solutions", they have answers.
Problems have solutions.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article om>,
>> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen
>> >> >> > > >> >to
>> >> >> > > >> >the
>> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to?
>> >> >> > > >> >For
>> >> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
>> >> >> > > >> >with
>> >> >> > > >> >the
>> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See
>> >> >> > > >how
>> >> >> > > >it
>> >> >> > > >works?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not
>> >> >> > > be
>> >> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
>> >> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to
>> >> >> > > it,
>> >> >> > > you know...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> .
>> >> >> ==========================
>> >> >> Jenn says:
>> >> >> > You're not making sense.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
>> >> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
>> >> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
>> >> >> as you like.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
>> >> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
>> >> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
>> >> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
>> >> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
>> >> >> musical thinking.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >
>> >> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
>> >> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
>> >> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
>> >> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!
>> >>
>> >> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
>> >> should...
>> >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>> >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
>> >> music, pink noise, etc.
>> >
>> > That seems like a positive.
>> >
>> >> People here ranting against ABX
>> >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>> >
>> > Solutions to what?
>>
>> To "the question" :). It does get kind of amusing at times that people
>> will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
>> obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".
>>
>> Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?
>
> Why not?

What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components
may be audibly different?

Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore
may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered.
Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different
to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of
average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group
be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly
is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently
a lot less fun.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article om>,
> >> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen
> >> >> >> > > >> >to
> >> >> >> > > >> >the
> >> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to?
> >> >> >> > > >> >For
> >> >> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B
> >> >> >> > > >> >with
> >> >> >> > > >> >the
> >> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See
> >> >> >> > > >how
> >> >> >> > > >it
> >> >> >> > > >works?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not
> >> >> >> > > be
> >> >> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> >> >> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to
> >> >> >> > > it,
> >> >> >> > > you know...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> ==========================
> >> >> >> Jenn says:
> >> >> >> > You're not making sense.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's trying
> >> >> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy thought
> >> >> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as long
> >> >> >> as you like.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you have
> >> >> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz you
> >> >> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
> >> >> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a conductor
> >> >> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
> >> >> >> musical thinking.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ludovic Mirabel
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must say,
> >> >> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to be.
> >> >> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
> >> >> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE ME!
> >> >>
> >> >> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
> >> >> should...
> >> >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> >> >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
> >> >> music, pink noise, etc.
> >> >
> >> > That seems like a positive.
> >> >
> >> >> People here ranting against ABX
> >> >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
> >> >
> >> > Solutions to what?
> >>
> >> To "the question" :). It does get kind of amusing at times that people
> >> will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
> >> obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".
> >>
> >> Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?
> >
> > Why not?
>
> What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components
> may be audibly different?
>
> Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore
> may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered.
> Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different
> to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of
> average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group
> be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly
> is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently
> a lot less fun.
>
> ScottW
==========================================
I agree with Middius. Before you write down a question you need to
define the problem
And the problem seems to me to be incapable of any useful definition.

ScootW asks his question:

"> What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components
> may be audibly different?

Snag Nr. 1. Does anyone here in rec. audio.opinion want just to know
if it is "different" or does he want to hear that it is to decide which
one he/she likes better?

Snag Nr. 2 Which components sound "audibly different" to which
listeners?
I probably will not hear much difference between one boom-box car
"system" and another. The difference may be glaring to a young car
audio lover.
{ And if I hear the difference it will be outwighed by the
overwhelming perception that both are intolerable.)

Vice versa for the guy next to me at a red lightr proudly rattling my
car windows should he ever listen to my selections for comparison he'd
feel they are all equally boring.

Similarly glaring differences between flutes heard by Jenn will be a
closed book to me.

There is no "test protocol" for hearing differences or for liking and
disliking. There are only people. All different.. I
You say (do you?) that a "test protocol" would help each one of us
decide. Perhaps. It is is a subject for research not for affirmation.
My inclination is to say that the "test protocol" would have to vary as
much as we humans do to accomodate old and young, males and females,
chamber music performers and rock-group singers.

Putting everyone in a PET Scan box while comparing sounds a shade more
promising. I can think of quite a few candidates.

I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy.
There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic
and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> .
>> >> >> com
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article om>,
>> >> >> > " > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> >> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > > dizzy > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
>> >> >> >> > > >> >listen
>> >> >> >> > > >> >to
>> >> >> >> > > >> >the
>> >> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to?
>> >> >> >> > > >> >For
>> >> >> >> > > >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to
>> >> >> >> > > >> >B
>> >> >> >> > > >> >with
>> >> >> >> > > >> >the
>> >> >> >> > > >> >same passage of music?
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > > >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See
>> >> >> >> > > >how
>> >> >> >> > > >it
>> >> >> >> > > >works?
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it
>> >> >> >> > > not
>> >> >> >> > > be
>> >> >> >> > > rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not"
>> >> >> >> > > and
>> >> >> >> > > "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given
>> >> >> >> > > to
>> >> >> >> > > it,
>> >> >> >> > > you know...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> .
>> >> >> >> ==========================
>> >> >> >> Jenn says:
>> >> >> >> > You're not making sense.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Not to you, not to me, but yes, oh yes to Mr. Dizzy. What he's
>> >> >> >> trying
>> >> >> >> to write down is that "serious thinkers' like Krueger and Dizzy
>> >> >> >> thought
>> >> >> >> of your objection and decided to permit you to play A or B for as
>> >> >> >> long
>> >> >> >> as you like.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thus making absolutely certain that by the time you get to X you
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> no idea what A and B sounded like and just to get rid of buzz-buzz
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> put another random checkmark in one of the squares.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Result?: Your random guesses will average to 50/50 and another "they
>> >> >> >> all sound the same" outcome is assured.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But think of all the fun you had had. Think how much better a
>> >> >> >> conductor
>> >> >> >> you will be after a few hours devoted to that product of serious
>> >> >> >> musical thinking.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Ludovic Mirabel
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I was trying to figure out why Dizzy felt the need to say "I must
>> >> >> > say,
>> >> >> > Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not." when I never claimed to
>> >> >> > be.
>> >> >> > I was simply asking a question about something that I know nothing
>> >> >> > about, and he felt the need to throw some snot. Well exCUSSSSSSSSSE
>> >> >> > ME!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If the listener has control of the source selector...which IMO, they
>> >> >> should...
>> >> >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>> >> >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage listening,
>> >> >> music, pink noise, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > That seems like a positive.
>> >> >
>> >> >> People here ranting against ABX
>> >> >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>> >> >
>> >> > Solutions to what?
>> >>
>> >> To "the question" :). It does get kind of amusing at times that people
>> >> will argue passionately on the validity of the solution while they
>> >> obviously fundamentally haven't agreed on what is "the question".
>> >>
>> >> Should I dare pose my idea of "the question"?
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components
>> may be audibly different?
>>
>> Here is where the discussion always deviates....people ignore
>> may and substitute 'will' which is a question that IMO can't be answered.
>> Taken to extreme...how would any two components be audibly different
>> to a stone deaf person?....So should we substitute for the majority of
>> average hearing acuity people? What is that?...Should age group
>> be a factor?....Probably. Suddenly posing the question properly
>> is just as arduous a task as arguing the solution...and apparently
>> a lot less fun.
>>
>> ScottW
> ==========================================
> I agree with Middius. Before you write down a question you need to
> define the problem
> And the problem seems to me to be incapable of any useful definition.

Useful is subjective.

>
> ScootW asks his question:
>
> "> What is a valid test protocol for demonstrating audio components
>> may be audibly different?
>
> Snag Nr. 1. Does anyone here in rec. audio.opinion want just to know
> if it is "different" or does he want to hear that it is to decide which
> one he/she likes better?

Defiinetely the latter...but as Olive demonstrated...the first
step is subjective and objective different.

>
> Snag Nr. 2 Which components sound "audibly different" to which
> listeners?

Definitely a significant problem in posing the question as I pointed
out.

> I probably will not hear much difference between one boom-box car
> "system" and another. The difference may be glaring to a young car
> audio lover.
> { And if I hear the difference it will be outwighed by the
> overwhelming perception that both are intolerable.)
>
> Vice versa for the guy next to me at a red lightr proudly rattling my
> car windows should he ever listen to my selections for comparison he'd
> feel they are all equally boring.
>
> Similarly glaring differences between flutes heard by Jenn will be a
> closed book to me.
>
> There is no "test protocol" for hearing differences or for liking and
> disliking. There are only people. All different.. I
> You say (do you?) that a "test protocol" would help each one of us
> decide.

Was that part of "the question"? Not as I posed it.

> Perhaps. It is is a subject for research not for affirmation.

Agreed.

> My inclination is to say that the "test protocol" would have to vary as
> much as we humans do to accomodate old and young, males and females,
> chamber music performers and rock-group singers.

Agreed.

>
> Putting everyone in a PET Scan box while comparing sounds a shade more
> promising. I can think of quite a few candidates.
>
> I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy.

Test protocols are always untidy in the compromises they invariable
must accept.

> There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic
> and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place.

It is a bit interesting when one becomes so dismissive of the other
while both are codependent.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:
>>
> > People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> > masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> > a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> > difference.
>
> People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.
>

That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias.

> I don't know where these other biases toward not hearing a difference
> come from.
>

for one example, a certain professiomal audio clown.





> > There are three possible biases wehn listeningn to two pieces of
> > equipment. A will sound different/better than B, B will sound
> > different/better than A, or that they
> > will sound the same. Yet, the test has only two possible responses.,
>
> Eliminate the preference question and the first two possibilities become
> one. You have 2 possibilities and 2 possible responses.
>

No
the third response is "I can't tell if it is A or b"



> > not at all adressing the perception of sameness.
>
> Sorry Art...what you describe is not an ABX test.
> That a simple AB test as described here.
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm
>
> which does talk some about the difference bias.
>
> I've never seen anyone indicate people are biased towards sameness.
>

right, if you don't consider borgs to be people.



> >
> > Not that it matters, we do not do our day to day listening in that test
> >
> > environment, so, any result of such test is irrelevqnt towardes
> > normal sighted listening.
> >
> > You are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.
>
> From a consumer perspective I don't see a problem.
> As a product developer/tester or researcher...there are questions
> and unanswered questions usually pose a problem.
> I'm not ever going to argue that AB or ABX are necessary
> or even useful (worth the effort) for consumers.
>
> ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> > > masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> > > a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> > > difference.

> > People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.

> That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias.

You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself,
right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the
same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie
Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism
deity as his favorite one.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> > dizzy > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
>> >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
>> >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
>> >> >same passage of music?
>> >>
>> >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
>> >
>> >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
>> >works?
>>
>> Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
>> rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
>> "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
>> you know...
>
>You're not making sense.

Think harder, Jenn.

[George M. Middius]

dippy the Kroopologist said:

> >> Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> >> rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> >> "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> >> you know...

> >You're not making sense.

> Think harder, Jenn.

Before you wade any further into this snakepit, Jenn, you might want to
ask dippy to describe his (no doubt) vast hands-on experience with aBxism
rituals. The last time he went into his aBxism apologia, I asked him just
that several times. He chose to withhold details of the origins of his
impressive first-hand knowledge of the infallible aBxism box even though I
asked him several times. I leaped ;-) to the conclusion that dippy, like
his fellow travelers Sillybot, duh-Mikey, BozoBorg, and the rest of them,
was simply worshipping an imaginary god.

Maybe if you ask him, the missing information will be forthcoming.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:

>> If the listener has control of the source
>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
>> listening,
>> music, pink noise, etc.
>
> That seems like a positive.

>> People here ranting against ABX
>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>> looking for excuses.

> Solutions to what?

ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg shoves aside the amateur preachers and takes hold of the
pulpit.

> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.

Only to a 'borg is being human a "problem".





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius wrote:
> The Krooborg shoves aside the amateur preachers and takes hold of the
> pulpit.
>
> > ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.
>
> Only to a 'borg is being human a "problem".
> -
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

-------------------------------------------------------

Next question: what kind of listener? A 16 year old heavy metal fan or
a fifty year old violinist? And next: what kind of bias? Bias in favour
of drumming that is music in the deepest Camerrons? Or for Sunday choir
singing? Or for the expensive ? Or for the cheapest, because "they all
sound the same anyway".
Continue as your fancy dictates. If you carry on long enough you'll
arrive at a faith and a awitching amulet to fit.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> If the listener has control of the source
> >> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
> >> listening,
> >> music, pink noise, etc.
> >
> > That seems like a positive.
>
> >> People here ranting against ABX
> >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >> looking for excuses.
>
> > Solutions to what?
>
> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.

From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> > dizzy > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
> >> >> >same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
> >> >> >example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >same passage of music?
> >> >>
> >> >> I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.
> >> >
> >> >I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
> >> >works?
> >>
> >> Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
> >> rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
> >> "what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
> >> you know...
> >
> >You're not making sense.
>
> Think harder, Jenn.

Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
me to summarize for you:

1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
in an ABX test....")
3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
the subject. Not."
4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
say, Dizzy...."
5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
simply asking a question about ABX, am trying to learn, and wondering
why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
allowed...."
6. I tell you, accurately, that you're not making sense. You then
throw more snot.

PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> > > > masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> > > > a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> > > > difference.
>
> > > People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.
>
> > That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias.
>
> You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself,
> right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the
> same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie
> Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism
> deity as his favorite one.
>
>I yusta pray to WMATA, my particular commuter God.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
>
> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.

Damn best stain remover I ever used.
You ought to box it up and sell it.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> > > > masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> > > > a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> > > > difference.
>
> > > People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.
>
> > That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias.
>
> You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself,
> right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the
> same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie
> Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism
> deity as his favorite one.

This is George's particular form of racist accusation.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >> If the listener has control of the source
> > >> selector...which IMO, they should...
> > >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> > >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
> > >> listening,
> > >> music, pink noise, etc.
> > >
> > > That seems like a positive.
> >
> > >> People here ranting against ABX
> > >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> > >> looking for excuses.
> >
> > > Solutions to what?
> >
> > ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.
>
> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.

>From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

>
> This is George's particular form of racist accusation.
>

Borgs aren't a race. They aren't even a species.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > message
> > >
> > > .com
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> If the listener has control of the source
> > > >> selector...which IMO, they should...
> > > >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> > > >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
> > > >> listening,
> > > >> music, pink noise, etc.
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a positive.
> > >
> > > >> People here ranting against ABX
> > > >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> > > >> looking for excuses.
> > >
> > > > Solutions to what?
> > >
> > > ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.
> >
> > From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.
>
> >From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution?
>
> ScottW

Good question.

[George M. Middius]

The fur is flying now.

> > Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie Terrierborg likes to worship
> > imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism deity as his favorite one.

> > This is George's particular form of racist accusation.

I'm guessing this is the comment you responded to, Scooter. Three
questions:

1. Since when are the simple-minded a "race"?

2. Would you volunteer for euthanasia in order to raise the human race's
collective IQ?

3. Why did you beg and plead for me to killfile you if you still want to
do your simple-minded version of bantering with me?

> Borgs aren't a race. They aren't even a species.

They're species-blind. They even assimilate socially retarded nerds.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > > > message
> > > >
> > > > .com
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> If the listener has control of the source
> > > > >> selector...which IMO, they should...
> > > > >> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> > > > >> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
> > > > >> listening,
> > > > >> music, pink noise, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > That seems like a positive.
> > > >
> > > > >> People here ranting against ABX
> > > > >> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> > > > >> looking for excuses.
> > > >
> > > > > Solutions to what?
> > > >
> > > > ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.
> > >
> > > From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.
> >
> > >From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Good question.

==================================
ScottW/ Jenn exchange:
> > >From a consumer POV....is there a problem needing a solution?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Good question. Jenn

Indeed. I think of quite a few more problems needing a solution.

Most consumers can only listen to one piece of music at a time. My
companmy produces a switch that will allow three. This is work in
progress. Next edition will cost more.

Famous performers fill concert halls. Less known play to half empty
auditoriums. The solution is so obvious that I'm not even going to
write it down.

Most consumers differ in their choice of shoes. Many years ago that
wasteful model was remedied in the defunct Soviet Union. Rationalising
production the left foot shoes became unobtainable out of Moscow.
Regrettably it lasted a few weeks only due to transport problems.
Solution ?: a pass to visit Moscow was instituted...

For more solutions (and problems) write to:
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
>me to summarize for you:

Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.

>1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
>know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
>in an ABX test....")
>3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
>the subject. Not."

I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as
much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off.

>4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
>say, Dizzy...."
>5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
>simply asking a question about ABX,

Wrong.

>am trying to learn, and wondering
>why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
>allowed...."
>6. I tell you, accurately,

Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn.

>that you're not making sense.

Think harder.

>You then throw more snot.

How ironic.

>PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.

My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>
> >Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
> >me to summarize for you:
>
> Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
> Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.
>
> >1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
> >know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
> >in an ABX test....")
> >3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
> >the subject. Not."
>
> I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as
> much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off.
>
> >4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
> >say, Dizzy...."
> >5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
> >simply asking a question about ABX,
>
> Wrong.
>
> >am trying to learn, and wondering
> >why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
> >allowed...."
> >6. I tell you, accurately,
>
> Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn.
>
> >that you're not making sense.
>
> Think harder.
>
> >You then throw more snot.
>
> How ironic.
>
> >PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.
>
> My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.

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

Mr. Dizzy says:

> My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.

You're latew Mr. Dizzy. The "Gulliver amongst the Liliputs" seat is
already claimed by Mr. Arnold Krueger..
You two mental giants need to settle that between you.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>> In article >,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
>>> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
>>> listening,
>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>
>> That seems like a positive.
>
>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>>> looking for excuses.
>
>> Solutions to what?
>
> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.


Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution to the well-known
problem of postitive listener differentiation bias, when using test signals
and artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and proven to be
reliable in differentiating. That is what ABX is.

Here is what it is not.

IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener differentiation bias
(who'd ever think *anybody* might have such biases)
IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener training (absolutely
essential, and the antithesis of open-ended evaluation)
IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only roughly half qualify
at H-K)
IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference *doesn't* exist (can't
prove a negative, and not designed to)
IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when used for open-ended
evaluation of the performance of audio components reproducing music
(open-ended listening cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).

Furthermore,:

ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct evaluation of audio
components, must be run with an ABX box that is no longer available, and
whose contacts may/may not audibly influence the sound

AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer to do open-ended
evaluation of actual components in use.

Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard about ABX and how it
is used/can be usefully used in product development (which I have a
background in, although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what I
have concluded:

Scientific research:

ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where it was first used
in audio, in order to determine human threasholds for various forms of
distortion, including compression artifacts. It is best used and most
sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be trained. Even so, a
careful screening of panel member is required. Within these conditions, it
serves as a useful research tool...for scientiific inquiry.

ABX has very little value in the actual development of audio gear. I've
examined the process from several different angels and have concluded it
would be useful only in a few cases. Consider these common development
scenarios:

Practical Development Efforts:

* The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting cheaper parts or
redesigning a circuit and wants to know if anybody can hear a difference.
How do you train for "no difference". How do you screen out poor
performers. Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist. No. While some abx
testing might give the manufacture some comfort level if all subjects failed
to differentiate, the test cannot conclusively prove a negative and cannot
even be well-run.

* Ditto for the manufacturer who wants to make a spot-on copy of an existing
competive product. Same caveat as above.

* The manufacture has a new hotshot development engineer/team who completely
redesigns a product. And the maufacture wants to know if the product is
perceived as better (it had better be, else why spend all that money). In
this case, the manufacturer would want to know if their is a difference, but
he would much more want to know prefernces that subsume differences. He'd
want to know overall preference between old and new, and perhaps between new
and some of the competition. He'd not only want to know the extent of
preference, he'd also want to examine the reasons for preference among those
who preferred the old, and among those who preferred the new. This requires
a preference test, which would almost certainly be used instead of an
abx-style differentiation test.

* I can't think of an instance where a manufacturer would deliberately
engineer in a change, and want to know after the fact if it "made a
difference" as opposed to "making the product cheaper or better". In other
words, the list is exhausted except for almost pure research purposes. And
only the Harmon Group and perhaps Panasonic and Sony are large enough to
finance such research commercially.

Practical Open-Ended Evaluation of Audio Components

* The purchaser doesn't really want to buy something "different", they want
to buy something if it sounds "better" to them. This requires a preference
test. If the purchasers doesn't want to trust his sighted judgement, he can
set up a blind or double-blind preference test assuming he can get som
assistance, and it will actually be slightly simpler than the abx test.
Most consumers will forego such rigourous testing on the basis that they can
live with any sighted bias and possitive differentiation bias, and that the
more rigorous test is too demaning of time and manpower resources to be
worthile. This is doubtless helped by the fact that most audio consumers
don't spend a fortune (relative to their income) on their equipment,
particularly if they upgrade over time. ABX testing has virtually no useful
roll to play in this case, as it is even more cumbersome than a double-blind
preference test and provides little or no more in the way of practical and
useful information. This assumes, of course, that it has first been actually
validated for the purpose of open-ended auditioning of audio components
playing music. In addition, an ABX test requires training on the artifacts
to be differentiated, and this won't initially be known in open-ended
testing.

Use of ABX by Reviewers

* ABX might be useful for reviewers in an occassional *validation* mode
(again if it is itself validated first). But it is far to cumbersome to be
used on an ongoing basis for the same reasons as outlined above for
consumers.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > > People are against ABX because it is a flawed BIASED test
> > > > > masquerading as an unbiased test. It adreeses biases toward perceiving
> > > > > a differance, and does not address biases toward not hearin a
> > > > > difference.
> >
> > > > People are biased toward hearing differences where none exist.
> >
> > > That statement is a reflectioon of your particular bias.
> >
> > You do realize that Scooter has never tried an aBxism box for himself,
> > right? Moreover, he's never seen one demonstrated, or even been in the
> > same room with one. Like a lot of simple-minded people, Scottie
> > Terrierborg likes to worship imaginary gods, and he has chosen the aBxism
> > deity as his favorite one.
>
> This is George's particular form of racist accusation.

There is a difference, toopid.

I laugh all of the time at your ignorance. I do not know what your IQ
is. I laugh all of the time at your religiosity. I do not know what
religion you are (although you claim not to be religious, your
attitudes show that you actually are, whether you admit it to yourself
or not).

Is this racism, or simply laughing at a well-known buffoon?

I think most see it as the latter.

LOL!

Moron.

________________________________________

toopid (n. Woefully Dense): a pitiful, bigoted, unsuccessful little man
with fatal mental and cognitive issues who is prone to emotional
meltdowns. He cannot distinguish between illogic and emotional appeal.
He tries ever-so-hard to play with the big boys but is unsuccessful in
that, too.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum comfort
> >>> with their selection...quick switch, long passage
> >>> listening,
> >>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>
> >> That seems like a positive.
> >
> >>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >>> looking for excuses.
> >
> >> Solutions to what?
> >
> > ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener bias.
>
>
> Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution to the well-known
> problem of postitive listener differentiation bias, when using test signals
> and artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and proven to be
> reliable in differentiating. That is what ABX is.
>
> Here is what it is not.
>
> IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener differentiation bias
> (who'd ever think *anybody* might have such biases)
> IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener training (absolutely
> essential, and the antithesis of open-ended evaluation)
> IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only roughly half qualify
> at H-K)
> IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference *doesn't* exist (can't
> prove a negative, and not designed to)
> IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when used for open-ended
> evaluation of the performance of audio components reproducing music
> (open-ended listening cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).
>
> Furthermore,:
>
> ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct evaluation of audio
> components, must be run with an ABX box that is no longer available, and
> whose contacts may/may not audibly influence the sound
>
> AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer to do open-ended
> evaluation of actual components in use.
>
> Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard about ABX and how it
> is used/can be usefully used in product development (which I have a
> background in, although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what I
> have concluded:
>
> Scientific research:
>
> ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where it was first used
> in audio, in order to determine human threasholds for various forms of
> distortion, including compression artifacts. It is best used and most
> sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be trained. Even so, a
> careful screening of panel member is required. Within these conditions, it
> serves as a useful research tool...for scientiific inquiry.
>
> ABX has very little value in the actual development of audio gear. I've
> examined the process from several different angels and have concluded it
> would be useful only in a few cases. Consider these common development
> scenarios:
>
> Practical Development Efforts:
>
> * The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting cheaper parts or
> redesigning a circuit and wants to know if anybody can hear a difference.
> How do you train for "no difference". How do you screen out poor
> performers. Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist. No. While some abx
> testing might give the manufacture some comfort level if all subjects failed
> to differentiate, the test cannot conclusively prove a negative and cannot
> even be well-run.
>
> * Ditto for the manufacturer who wants to make a spot-on copy of an existing
> competive product. Same caveat as above.
>
> * The manufacture has a new hotshot development engineer/team who completely
> redesigns a product. And the maufacture wants to know if the product is
> perceived as better (it had better be, else why spend all that money). In
> this case, the manufacturer would want to know if their is a difference, but
> he would much more want to know prefernces that subsume differences. He'd
> want to know overall preference between old and new, and perhaps between new
> and some of the competition. He'd not only want to know the extent of
> preference, he'd also want to examine the reasons for preference among those
> who preferred the old, and among those who preferred the new. This requires
> a preference test, which would almost certainly be used instead of an
> abx-style differentiation test.
>
> * I can't think of an instance where a manufacturer would deliberately
> engineer in a change, and want to know after the fact if it "made a
> difference" as opposed to "making the product cheaper or better". In other
> words, the list is exhausted except for almost pure research purposes. And
> only the Harmon Group and perhaps Panasonic and Sony are large enough to
> finance such research commercially.
>
> Practical Open-Ended Evaluation of Audio Components
>
> * The purchaser doesn't really want to buy something "different", they want
> to buy something if it sounds "better" to them. This requires a preference
> test. If the purchasers doesn't want to trust his sighted judgement, he can
> set up a blind or double-blind preference test assuming he can get som
> assistance, and it will actually be slightly simpler than the abx test.
> Most consumers will forego such rigourous testing on the basis that they can
> live with any sighted bias and possitive differentiation bias, and that the
> more rigorous test is too demaning of time and manpower resources to be
> worthile. This is doubtless helped by the fact that most audio consumers
> don't spend a fortune (relative to their income) on their equipment,
> particularly if they upgrade over time. ABX testing has virtually no useful
> roll to play in this case, as it is even more cumbersome than a double-blind
> preference test and provides little or no more in the way of practical and
> useful information. This assumes, of course, that it has first been actually
> validated for the purpose of open-ended auditioning of audio components
> playing music. In addition, an ABX test requires training on the artifacts
> to be differentiated, and this won't initially be known in open-ended
> testing.
>
> Use of ABX by Reviewers
>
> * ABX might be useful for reviewers in an occassional *validation* mode
> (again if it is itself validated first). But it is far to cumbersome to be
> used on an ongoing basis for the same reasons as outlined above for
> consumers.

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

Harry, you just made an excellent exhaustive survey of ABX testing AS
APPLIED TO COMPARISON OF MUSICAL REPRODUCTION BY DIFFERENT audio
components.

It is predictable that it will make no impact in the ABX chapel. The
pipedream promise of an infallible consumer guiide to audio is too
attractive for a resoned argument. And the scientific test tells that
you may just as well listen to your computer whiz loudspeakere
"system".
In addition most of those who try switching from A to B and then to X
soon find that they no longer can tell one piece of music from the
other let alone one amp from another. See the notes on "performance" or
rather lack of it of most of Sean Olive's subjects who yet knew what
they liked best even though their answers to the difference question
were abysmally poor..

As for "training"; by the time they are trained for ABX they no longer
need the ritual.. They are accurate listeners.

All you'll get this time will be a repeat of how good ABX is in audio
research. They can't quote any successes in well-planned trials of its
application to component comparison. Why? Because none exist

Since none exist ABX for audio listeners does not exist either.It is
timethe chapel preachers.showed to the professionals that they arew
serious researchers. Polemics in RAO are not it.

Sheer waste of time and waste of your knowledge and intelligence
treating it seriously..
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> Since none exist ABX for audio listeners does not exist either.It is
> timethe chapel preachers.showed to the professionals that they arew
> serious researchers. Polemics in RAO are not it.

I believe you've missed the point of aBxism. The true believers know
(somehow) that there exists an Ultimate Answer. You haven't proved the aBx
box is *not* the Answer; therefore, the faith of the 'borgs is fully
justified.

You wouldn't be so dismissive of blind faith if you hadn't had your mind
poisoned by all that science and logic they teach in medical school.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
> >me to summarize for you:
>
> Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
> Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.

Well, let's see about that, shall we?

>
> >1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

Obviously no bias.

> >2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
> >know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
> >in an ABX test....")

Obviously no bias.

> >3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
> >the subject. Not."

No bias. Most would agree that your statement is childish, based on the
fact that I never claimed to be "up on the subject." That's why I asked
the question.

>
> I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as
> much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off.

When have I "spouted off" about ABX? I guess that in your world, one is
not allowed to ask questions and try to learn. Too bad.

>
> >4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
> >say, Dizzy...."

Again, no bias.

> >5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
> >simply asking a question about ABX,
>
> Wrong.

How does your statement relate to the fact that I was simply asking a
question?

>
> >am trying to learn, and wondering
> >why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
> >allowed...."
> >6. I tell you, accurately,
>
> Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn.
>
> >that you're not making sense.
>
> Think harder.
>
> >You then throw more snot.
>
> How ironic.
>
> >PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.
>
> My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.

LOL. Come back when you have something substantial. Again, I was
SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION. If you can't deal with it and simply want to
hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response.

[Sander deWaal]

" > said:


>I know that to many engineers what I say will sound typically untidy.
>There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic
>and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place.


And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>>>> passage listening,
>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>
>>> That seems like a positive.
>>
>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>>>> looking for excuses.
>>
>>> Solutions to what?
>>
>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
>> bias.
>
> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that
still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD,
ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic
> >and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place.

> And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-)

You're free to contract for a lobotomy if that will ease your burden.

;-)






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
> >>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
> >>>> passage listening,
> >>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>
> >>> That seems like a positive.
> >>
> >>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >>>> looking for excuses.
> >>
> >>> Solutions to what?
> >>
> >> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
> >> bias.
> >
> > From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good solution.
>
> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>
> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that
> still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD,
> ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.

Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally impractical
solution for anything vis-a-vis the home consumer.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is STILL at odds with reality.

> > From a consumer POV [aBxism] doesn't seem like a good solution.

> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?

LOL!

> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that infinitesimal minority that
> still thinks that certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD,
> ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.

Arnii, if the rituals are so wonderful, why is the aBxism religion
virtually unknown outside of Usenet? Where are the legions of consumers
who will testify to the efficacy of aBxism?

The real question most people would ask is why you are so resistant to
reality. Of course we on RAO all know the answer to that one.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:


>> >There are the fundamental aptitude differences between the humanistic
>> >and the technological minds..Booth are needed in their right place.


>> And cursed is the person who is both........ ;-)


>You're free to contract for a lobotomy if that will ease your burden.

>;-)


I carry it with pride and dignity!


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>>>> passage listening,
>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>
>>> That seems like a positive.
>>
>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>>>> looking for excuses.
>>
>>> Solutions to what?
>>
>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
>> bias.
>
>
> Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution
> to the well-known problem of postitive listener
> differentiation bias, when using test signals and
> artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and
> proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what
> ABX is.

Could you write in a more pompous and rediculous fashion, Harry?

It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests - ABX is well-known
to be bullet-proof solution to the well-known problem of false positive
results.

> Here is what it is not.

> IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener
> differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might
> have such biases)

Again Harry, you've managed to make something simple seem complex. ABX
addresses a problem with false negative results some people hypothesize
exists.

> IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener
> training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of
> open-ended evaluation)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

> IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only
> roughly half qualify at H-K)

How does that make ABX any different from most other ways of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

> IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference
> *doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed
> to)

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

> IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when
> used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of
> audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening
> cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?


> Furthermore,:

> ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct
> evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX
> box that is no longer available, and whose contacts
> may/may not audibly influence the sound

In fact an ABX box is not required to do ABX tests - the ABX box just makes
it more convenient. The purpose of the ABX Comparator is to make it easy to
do valid DBTs all by yourself. If you have an assistant, then you don't need
an ABX box.

Given that thousands of people have done PCABX tests which are basically ABX
tests, Harry is not telling the whole truth here. There is an inexhaustable
supply of PVABX comparators.


> AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer
> to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use.

"Open--ended" is a Lavo-ism. It's a phrase with no standard aggreed-upon
meaning. It means whatever Harry wants to construe it to mean.

> Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard
> about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in
> product development (which I have a background in,
> although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what
> I have concluded:

> Scientific research:

> ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where
> it was first used in audio, in order to determine human
> threasholds for various forms of distortion, including
> compression artifacts. It is best used and most
> sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be
> trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is
> required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful
> research tool...for scientiific inquiry.

> ABX has very little value in the actual development of
> audio gear.

Hmm, maybe Harry is actually going to some much-needed homework ehre.

> I've examined the process from several
> different angels and have concluded it would be useful
> only in a few cases. Consider these common development
> scenarios:

> Practical Development Efforts:

> * The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting
> cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know
> if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for
> "no difference".

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

> How do you screen out poor performers.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.

> Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist.

How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?

Bottom line, Harry is just blowing hot wind out of the back of his neck.
Like Mirabel, Harry's vendetta against ABX is well-known and has been
illustrated with many examples.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

>
> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
> above. Allow me to summarize for you:
>
> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.

It's been going on for about a decade.

> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
> question: "When participating in an ABX test....")

Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.

Why has she not done so?

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

/
>
> It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests

but not as smelly as your prosaic turds.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> >
> > Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
> > above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >
> > 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>
> It's been going on for about a decade.
>
> > 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> > never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
> > question: "When participating in an ABX test....")
>
> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
> downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.
>
> Why has she not done so?

because she souldn't care less about 2 second snippets of
elecronicaqlly
generqated castenets played through a pc.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>>>>>> passage listening,
>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems like a positive.
>>>>
>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>>>>>> looking for excuses.
>>>>
>>>>> Solutions to what?
>>>>
>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
>>>> bias.
>>>
>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
>>> solution.
>>
>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>>
>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
>> doesn't seem like a good solution.

> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
> consumer.

Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
audible.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
> done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
> the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

So tell me, Arns: how many amps, preamps, CD players, DVD players, etc.
do you bring home to ABX prior to making a selection? Obviously at
least two of each, but how many more?

How does your retailer feel about all the open-box merchandise that you
return?

And how many restock charges do you accrue in your quest for sameness?

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
> >>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
> >>>>>> passage listening,
> >>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That seems like a positive.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >>>>>> looking for excuses.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Solutions to what?
> >>>>
> >>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
> >>>> bias.
> >>>
> >>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
> >>> solution.
> >>
> >> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
> >>
> >> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
> >> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
> >> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
> >> doesn't seem like a good solution.
>
> > Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
> > impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
> > consumer.
>
> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the great job it has
> done at convincing home consumers that contrary to many things published in
> the high end audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.
>
> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
> thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> audible.

I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
even HEARD of ABX?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> >
> > Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
> > above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >
> > 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>
> It's been going on for about a decade.

Point?

>
> > 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> > never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
> > question: "When participating in an ABX test....")
>
> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
> downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.
>
> Why has she not done so?

I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables
(or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known
to me.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> Arny Krueger a scris:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in
> > message
> >
> > om
> > >
> > > Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the
> > > above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> > >
> > > 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >
> > It's been going on for about a decade.
> >
> > > 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> > > never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a simple
> > > question: "When participating in an ABX test....")
> >
> > Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
> > downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.
> >
> > Why has she not done so?
>
> because she souldn't care less about 2 second snippets of
> elecronicaqlly
> generqated castenets played through a pc.

That too.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> >Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
>> >me to summarize for you:
>>
>> Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
>> Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.
>
>Well, let's see about that, shall we?
>
>>
>> >1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>
>Obviously no bias.
>
>> >2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
>> >know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
>> >in an ABX test....")
>
>Obviously no bias.
>
>> >3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
>> >the subject. Not."
>
>No bias.

No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

>Most would agree that your statement is childish,

Most would agree you're an idiot. How's that?

>based on the
>fact that I never claimed to be "up on the subject." That's why I asked
>the question.

You're question was stupid. Deal with it.

>> I felt you deserved it, Jenn. Anyone who argues about audio issues as
>> much as you do should be more informed before they spout-off.
>
>When have I "spouted off" about ABX?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Jenn? You spout-off
about audio issues.

>I guess that in your world, one is
>not allowed to ask questions and try to learn.

Wrong again, Jenn. (Hey, that rhymes!)

>Too bad.

Too bad you're so hyper-sensitive, Jenn.

>> >4. Dismayed at why you would do such a thing, I retort with: "I must
>> >say, Dizzy...."
>
>Again, no bias.

Again, bias.

>> >5. You then reply with something totally off topic to my point that I'm
>> >simply asking a question about ABX,
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>How does your statement relate to the fact that I was simply asking a
>question?

How does your question relate to the fact that I was simply making a
statement?

>> >am trying to learn, and wondering
>> >why you feel the need to throw snot: "If such a thing were not
>> >allowed...."
>> >6. I tell you, accurately,
>>
>> Nope. Not accurate at all, Jenn.

Note: no reponse.

>> >that you're not making sense.
>>
>> Think harder.

Note: no response.

>> >You then throw more snot.
>>
>> How ironic.

Note: no response.

>> >PLEASE tell me that you're not responsible for teaching anybody anything.
>>
>> My "classes" are too advanced for you, Jenn.
>
>LOL. Come back when you have something substantial.

How ironic.

>Again, I was
>SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.

Again, I was SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT.

>If you can't deal with it and simply want to
>hurl "insults"

If you can't deal with it and simply want to hurl "snot"

>you're no long worth a response.

But Arny is, apparently.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
> > > impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
> > > consumer.

> > ABX has also done a good job of convincing home consumers and audio pros
> > thatwhatever technical limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> > audible.

> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
> even HEARD of ABX?

Irrelevant. Did you hear of chlorofluorocarbons before they were banned?
Thank's Jnen for, admitting Jeen that you're are as clueless-about
envorinemtal poison's Jennn like Audio-engineering Jenne.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own ABX tests by
> > downloading some files and programs from www.pcabx.com.
> > Why has she not done so?

> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do: compare turntables
> (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known
> to me.

You're putting the cart after the horse as usual, here Jenn. The entire
whole complete point of doing the castanet drill on Krooger's site is to
learn that EVERYTHING SOUNDS THE SAME. Once you're over that hump, you
won't worry about trying to distinguish actual components from others.

Try to keep up Jennn. Its like the space-program probably-won't have a
feminine astronaut if your the best of the rest.

;-)






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dizzy > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>
> >> >Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
> >> >me to summarize for you:
> >>
> >> Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
> >> Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.
> >
> >Well, let's see about that, shall we?
> >
> >>
> >> >1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >
> >Obviously no bias.
> >
> >> >2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
> >> >know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
> >> >in an ABX test....")
> >
> >Obviously no bias.
> >
> >> >3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
> >> >the subject. Not."
> >
> >No bias.
>
> No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL

Correct. Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
you did is childish. Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
appreciated that.

>
> >Most would agree that your statement is childish,
>
> Most would agree you're an idiot.

Well, that ends this "discussion", except for this observation:

> You're question was stupid.

We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
making here. lol

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>> No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL
>
>Correct.

Wrong, obviously.

>Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
>you did is childish.

Most would agree that your question was stupid.

>Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
>appreciated that.

Great. You and Arny are real tight now, eh?

>> >Most would agree that your statement is childish,
>>
>> Most would agree you're an idiot.
>
>Well, that ends this "discussion",

Looks like you can dish it out but cannot take it, Jenn.

>except for this observation:

You're going to "observe" a typo, Jenn? How childish.

>> You're question was stupid.
>
>We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
>up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
>making here. lol

I guess you told me, Jenn. I guess you're a deeper thinker than what
I gave you credit for. (Rolling eyes)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
> >>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
> >>>> passage listening,
> >>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>
> >>> That seems like a positive.
> >>
> >>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >>>> looking for excuses.
> >>
> >>> Solutions to what?
> >>
> >> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of listener
> >> bias.
> >
> >
> > Let's try to make it accurate, Arny. ABX is a solution
> > to the well-known problem of postitive listener
> > differentiation bias, when using test signals and
> > artifacts on which the respondent has been trained and
> > proven to be reliable in differentiating. That is what
> > ABX is.
>
> Could you write in a more pompous and rediculous fashion, Harry?
>
> It is far simpler than than your turgid prose suggests - ABX is well-known
> to be bullet-proof solution to the well-known problem of false positive
> results.
>
> > Here is what it is not.
>
> > IT IS NOT a test that eliminates negative listener
> > differentiation bias (who'd ever think *anybody* might
> > have such biases)
>
> Again Harry, you've managed to make something simple seem complex. ABX
> addresses a problem with false negative results some people hypothesize
> exists.
>
> > IT IS NOT a test that can be run without listener
> > training (absolutely essential, and the antithesis of
> > open-ended evaluation)
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> > IT IS NOT a test that everybody can validly use (only
> > roughly half qualify at H-K)
>
> How does that make ABX any different from most other ways of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> > IT IS NOT a test for proving some sound difference
> > *doesn't* exist (can't prove a negative, and not designed
> > to)
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> > IT IS NOT a test that has been verified to be valid when
> > used for open-ended evaluation of the performance of
> > audio components reproducing music (open-ended listening
> > cannot be reduced to a single artifact for training).
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
>
> > Furthermore,:
>
> > ABX *IS* a test that, in order to do open-ended, direct
> > evaluation of audio components, must be run with an ABX
> > box that is no longer available, and whose contacts
> > may/may not audibly influence the sound
>
> In fact an ABX box is not required to do ABX tests - the ABX box just makes
> it more convenient. The purpose of the ABX Comparator is to make it easy to
> do valid DBTs all by yourself. If you have an assistant, then you don't need
> an ABX box.
>
> Given that thousands of people have done PCABX tests which are basically ABX
> tests, Harry is not telling the whole truth here. There is an inexhaustable
> supply of PVABX comparators.
>
>
> > AND ABX *IS NOT* a program that can be run on a computer
> > to do open-ended evaluation of actual components in use.
>
> "Open--ended" is a Lavo-ism. It's a phrase with no standard aggreed-upon
> meaning. It means whatever Harry wants to construe it to mean.
>
> > Since Scotties challenge I have thought long and hard
> > about ABX and how it is used/can be usefully used in
> > product development (which I have a background in,
> > although only briefly in the audio field). Here is what
> > I have concluded:
>
> > Scientific research:
>
> > ABX may have great value in the audiometric field, where
> > it was first used in audio, in order to determine human
> > threasholds for various forms of distortion, including
> > compression artifacts. It is best used and most
> > sensitive with test signals to which listeners can be
> > trained. Even so, a careful screening of panel member is
> > required. Within these conditions, it serves as a useful
> > research tool...for scientiific inquiry.
>
> > ABX has very little value in the actual development of
> > audio gear.
>
> Hmm, maybe Harry is actually going to some much-needed homework ehre.
>
> > I've examined the process from several
> > different angels and have concluded it would be useful
> > only in a few cases. Consider these common development
> > scenarios:
>
> > Practical Development Efforts:
>
> > * The manufacturer cost reduces a product by substituting
> > cheaper parts or redesigning a circuit and wants to know
> > if anybody can hear a difference. How do you train for
> > "no difference".
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.
>
> > How do you screen out poor performers.
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> Practical examples may be downloaded from www.pcabx.com.
>
> > Can it prove a difference doesnt' exist.
>
> How does that make ABX any different from any other way of doing listening
> tests? If you have no answer Harry, then why are you bringing it up here?
>
> Bottom line, Harry is just blowing hot wind out of the back of his neck.
> Like Mirabel, Harry's vendetta against ABX is well-known and has been
> illustrated with many examples.

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

Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way to compare
audio components is grist to Krueger's mill. You're trapped now..

You can't discuss a method that has not been validated by research.
What success did you have discussing religion with a Jehovah's witness
crew?
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

>We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
>up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
>making here. lol

No, what we REALLY must come up with is a name for the syndrome that
YOU exhibit, Jenn: Attack a typo after making an error like you did.
lol

In
>
Jenn > wrote:

>If you can't deal with it and simply want to
>hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response.

I'm "no long worth" a response, Jenn? Do you have any idea how
assinine it is to attack typos, Jenn, especially when you're guilty of
the same "crime"?

[[email protected]]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> dizzy > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> > >In article >,
> > > dizzy > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Jenn wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read the above. Allow
> > >> >me to summarize for you:
> > >>
> > >> Why "summarize" something that we can all easily read for ourselves,
> > >> Jenn? Oh, right, you want to put your bias on every point.
> > >
> > >Well, let's see about that, shall we?
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> > >
> > >Obviously no bias.
> > >
> > >> >2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and never claiming to
> > >> >know anything about it), I ask a simple question: "When participating
> > >> >in an ABX test....")
> > >
> > >Obviously no bias.
> > >
> > >> >3. You make a childish statement: "I must say, Jenn you're really up on
> > >> >the subject. Not."
> > >
> > >No bias.
> >
> > No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL
>
> Correct. Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
> you did is childish. Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
> appreciated that.
>
> >
> > >Most would agree that your statement is childish,
> >
> > Most would agree you're an idiot.
>
> Well, that ends this "discussion", except for this observation:
>
> > You're question was stupid.
>
> We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
> up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
> making here. lol

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

Jenn, will you be going on being polite to this Neanderthal? His
opinions match his image.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >> No bias in your "childish statement" attack? LOL
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Wrong, obviously.
>
> >Most people would agree that answering a simple question how
> >you did is childish.
>
> Most would agree that your question was stupid.

They would? I'll remember that if you ever have the curiosity to ask a
question about music.

>
> >Arny simply gave a straightforward answer. I
> >appreciated that.
>
> Great. You and Arny are real tight now, eh?

Many people judge each situation individually. Evidently, you don't.
You're entitled, I guess.

>
> >> >Most would agree that your statement is childish,
> >>
> >> Most would agree you're an idiot.
> >
> >Well, that ends this "discussion",
>
> Looks like you can dish it out but cannot take it, Jenn.

I don't "dish out" things such as calling people on this board idiots.
If you wish to do that, fine, but I have no desire to continue such a
discussion.

>
> >except for this observation:
>
> You're going to "observe" a typo, Jenn? How childish.

"Think harder" Dizzy. That's not what I'm observing.
>
> >> You're question was stupid.
> >
> >We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
> >up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
> >making here. lol
>
> I guess you told me, Jenn. I guess you're a deeper thinker than what
> I gave you credit for. (Rolling eyes)

What do you think I was observing, Dizzy?

[Jenn]

In article >,
dizzy > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >We simply must come up with a name for the syndrome that so often shows
> >up: question someone's intelligence and make an error like "your"
> >making here. lol
>
> No, what we REALLY must come up with is a name for the syndrome that
> YOU exhibit, Jenn: Attack a typo after making an error like you did.
> lol
>
> In
> >
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> >If you can't deal with it and simply want to
> >hurl "insults" you're no long worth a response.
>
> I'm "no long worth" a response, Jenn? Do you have any idea how
> assinine it is to attack typos, Jenn, especially when you're guilty of
> the same "crime"?

What was I "attacking" Dizzy? Hint: it wasn't typos.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Jenn wrote:

> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
> even HEARD of ABX?

Geez but you're dumb. Come back when you have a clue, OK, Jenn?

100%. If they've ever heard a difference between audio components (or
more accurately, if they don't all sound the same unless they're
broken) they've never heard of ABX.

Case closed.

Next.

I am *so* far above you, Jenn, that I do not know why I bother.

Snot noted.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>>>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>>>>>>>> passage listening,
>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
>>>>>>>> looking for excuses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
>>>>>> listener bias.
>>>>>
>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
>>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>>>>
>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
>>>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
>>>> doesn't seem like a good solution.
>>
>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
>>> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
>>> consumer.
>>
>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the
>> great job it has done at convincing home consumers that
>> contrary to many things published in the high end audio
>> press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.

>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
>> audible.

> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

However I notice that "LP record" gets about 30 times more hits than "ABX
test" on google.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> You're trapped now..

Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper validating
sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among
audio products.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>>
>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
>>> the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
>>>
>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>>
>> It's been going on for about a decade.
>
> Point?
]
And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that
discussion are....????

>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
>>> never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
>>> simple question: "When participating in an ABX
>>> test....")

>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
>> ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
>> www.pcabx.com.
>
>> Why has she not done so?

> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> speakers) using music that is well known to me.


What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg demonstrates its mastery of "the debating trade".

> >> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
> >> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
> >> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> >> audible.

> > I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> > figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?

> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

I'll bet you still don't have any idea why you're universally reviled,
Arnii. I have a thought -- now that paul has returned from his break,
maybe he'll deign to explain it to you.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is lonely in the Hive today.

> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper validating
> sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among
> audio products.

Arnii, brace yourself before reading on.

human being (n)
1 a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing
the human species
2 (a) having human form or attributes (b) susceptible to or representative
of the sympathies and frailties of human nature


I know that must have been upsetting for you. Give yourself an extra whack
on the head so you can expeditiously return to your customary state of
disoriented babbling.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>>
> >>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
> >>> the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >>>
> >>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >>
> >> It's been going on for about a decade.
> >
> > Point?
> ]
> And your explanation for your ignorance of significant details of that
> discussion are....????

I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.

>
> >>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> >>> never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
> >>> simple question: "When participating in an ABX
> >>> test....")
>
> >> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
> >> ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
> >> www.pcabx.com.
> >
> >> Why has she not done so?
>
> > I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> > compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> > speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>
>
> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
> level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
> preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
the store or home situation.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
> >>>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
> >>>>>>>> passage listening,
> >>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>>>>>> are generally not looking for solutions....they're
> >>>>>>>> looking for excuses.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Solutions to what?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
> >>>>>> listener bias.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
> >>>>> solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
> >>>>
> >>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
> >>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
> >>>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
> >>>> doesn't seem like a good solution.
> >>
> >>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
> >>> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
> >>> consumer.
> >>
> >> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is the
> >> great job it has done at convincing home consumers that
> >> contrary to many things published in the high end audio
> >> press, audio snake oil products are a waste of money.
>
> >> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
> >> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
> >> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> >> audible.
>
> > I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> > figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
>
> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
>
> However I notice that "LP record" gets about 30 times more hits than "ABX
> test" on google.

So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of convincing home
consumers of anything? It seems more than reasonable to conclude that
the vast majority home audio consumers have never heard of it.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you figure have ever
> > even HEARD of ABX?
>
> Geez but you're dumb. Come back when you have a clue, OK, Jenn?
>
> 100%. If they've ever heard a difference between audio components (or
> more accurately, if they don't all sound the same unless they're
> broken) they've never heard of ABX.
>
> Case closed.
>
> Next.
>
> I am *so* far above you, Jenn, that I do not know why I bother.
>
> Snot noted.
>
> ;-)

Lots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>>>>>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>>>>>>>>>> passage listening,
>>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
>>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
>>>>>>>> listener bias.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
>>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
>>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
>>>>>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
>>>>>> doesn't seem like a good solution.
>>>>
>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
>>>>> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
>>>>> consumer.
>>>>
>>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
>>>> the great job it has done at convincing home consumers
>>>> that contrary to many things published in the high end
>>>> audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of
>>>> money.
>>
>>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
>>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
>>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
>>>> audible.
>>
>>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
>>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
>>
>> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.

> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> convincing home consumers of anything?

There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD
format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that
are less accurate.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
>>>>> the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>>>>
>>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
>>>
>>> Point?
>> ]
>> And your explanation for your ignorance of significant
>> details of that discussion are....????
>
> I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.
>
>>
>>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
>>>>> never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
>>>>> simple question: "When participating in an ABX
>>>>> test....")
>>
>>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
>>>> ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
>>>> www.pcabx.com.
>>>
>>>> Why has she not done so?
>>
>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>>
>>
>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?

> None that I know of.

I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
>> professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
>> developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
>> Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
>> a few of the industry periodicals also help."
>
>> These are words you never lived by, Arny.
>
> Delusions of omnisicence noted.
>
No "omnisicence" required. I know a fake when I see it (you).

When you have works in the Library of Congress listing you
as the recording engineer, please let me know, Sugar Pants. :).


> Powell, how can you say that I've never attended seminars,
>
Hehehe... right!


> visited trade shows,
>
Hehehe... right again!


> and read audio industry-related periodicals?
>
Broke-A$$®, you can't even afford a magazine
subscription or a professional membership... who
are you trying to kid?

You lied to Atkinson and me about your readily
available library access to AES journals. Why is
that? If you could control your ego you wouldn't
need to falsely pretend to be someone you're not.


> Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch
> me 24/7?
>
No need. You spend all you time posting to USEnet, you
have no life worth monitoring. I suspect that your wife
is a sweetheart who abides living with an abusive person.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class.
>
Yea, that and your antiquated web site... best dogs
in show, mr. Eukanuba. :)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>> You're trapped now..
>
> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> differences among audio products.
>

Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has a
sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
discussion, Arny?"

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

> > Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch
> > me 24/7?

> No need. You spend all you time posting to USEnet, you
> have no life worth monitoring. I suspect that your wife
> is a sweetheart who abides living with an abusive person.

Actually, the poor thing is heavily medicated, partly to treat her own
illness and partly to dull the pain of being stuck with Mr. ****.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com
> >
> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> >> You're trapped now..
> >
> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> > differences among audio products.
> >
>
> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has a
> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
> discussion, Arny?"

So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
not a viable alternative. What is?

ScottW

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> >
> > > I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> > > compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> > > speakers) using music that is well known to me.

You forgot....in the store or home.
> >
> >
> > What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
> > level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
> > preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
>
> None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
> the store or home situation.

I can see a problem in the store but I think we all accept that even
sighted
listening is problematic for comparing gear in most stores.
But what is preventing you from conducting the tests in your home?

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > wrote in message
>> > oups.com
>> >
>> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>> >> You're trapped now..
>> >
>> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
>> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
>> > differences among audio products.
>> >
>>
>> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
>> a
>> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
>> this
>> discussion, Arny?"
>
> So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> not a viable alternative. What is?
>

If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
evaluation fairly sensitive to do. And if I wanted to do a validation test,
I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.

For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
want to buy.

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com
> >> >
> >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> >> >> You're trapped now..
> >> >
> >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> >> > differences among audio products.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
> >> a
> >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> >> this
> >> discussion, Arny?"
> >
> > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> > not a viable alternative. What is?
> >
>
> If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
> synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
> long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> evaluation fairly sensitive to do.

What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
were
inconclusive?

BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
of
providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.

> And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
>
> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
> or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
> purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
> fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
> listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> want to buy.

I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
and
the hobbyist could read about those results as well.

ScottW

[vlad]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com
> >> >
> >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> >> >> You're trapped now..
> >> >
> >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> >> > differences among audio products.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
> >> a
> >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> >> this
> >> discussion, Arny?"
> >
> > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> > not a viable alternative. What is?
> >
>
> If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
> synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
> long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> evaluation fairly sensitive to do. And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
>
> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
> or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
> purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
> fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
> listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> want to buy.

If all people in audio industry (designers, manufacturers and
reviewers) would be professional and honest then your approach would
work just fine.

However this industry is full of snake oil salesmen pushing on public
their overpriced stuff that does nothing in a best case and hurts sound
as a rule. Should I mention overpriced cables, incompetent designs,
digital lenses, etc.? I think, it is the obligation of knowledgeable
people to explain to less knowing audiophile's real value of these
"magical cures".

Objective test would be highly desirable for exposing of real merits of
pieces of hardware. However IMO, the average "high-ender" prefers
subjective means even at a price of being robbed by snake-oil pushers.

vlad

[George M. Middius]

vladborg jostles with the Krooborg for the front-and-center position on
the aBxism pulpit.

> However this industry is full of snake oil salesmen pushing on public
> their overpriced stuff that does nothing in a best case and hurts sound
> as a rule.

Say it, brotherborg! Hallelujah!




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> > oups.com
>> >> >
>> >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>> >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>> >> >> You're trapped now..
>> >> >
>> >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
>> >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
>> >> > differences among audio products.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He
>> >> has
>> >> a
>> >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
>> >> this
>> >> discussion, Arny?"
>> >
>> > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
>> > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
>> > not a viable alternative. What is?
>> >
>>
>> If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
>> preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a
>> blind,
>> synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over
>> a
>> long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
>> evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
>
> What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
> were
> inconclusive?

I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then
restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both samples
rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and order
bias).

>
> BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
> of
> providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
>

I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you
are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful
information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the
test.

>> And if I wanted to do a validation test,
>> I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
>>
>> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical
>> issue
>> or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after
>> the
>> purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening
>> is
>> fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to,
>> by
>> listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
>> want to buy.
>
> I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
> and
> the hobbyist could read about those results as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using
sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show how
it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to organize
and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research
organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical
evaluation. Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget
and the sophistication to want to do so. Fortunately, I worked 23 years for
consumer packaged goods firms where such research is a way of life. To give
you an example, even the "small" Division I helped build for one such
company had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing budget of
$16mm, and of that a research budget of just under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K
doesn't spend $2.0mm a year on research (I don't mean development...I mean
actually testing, or buying data to analyze).

[Powell]

"George M. Middius" wrote

>> > Are you going to tell the nice people here that you watch
>> > me 24/7?
>
>> No need. You spend all you time posting to USEnet, you
>> have no life worth monitoring. I suspect that your wife
>> is a sweetheart who abides living with an abusive person.
>
> Actually, the poor thing is heavily medicated, partly to treat
> her own illness and partly to dull the pain of being stuck with
> Mr. ****.
>
So a music metaphor might be, Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell,
Paradise by the Dashboard Lights. And not the cheap CD
version either, I'm talking CBS Master Sound Half-Speed
Mastered LP. The Mrs. would then be, 'praying for the end
of time to hurry-up and arrive.' No? :)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> > to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> > You're trapped now..
>
> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper validating
> sighted listening as a determining the presence of small differences among
> audio products.

Let's start at the start. You market a switch for the recognition of
small differences between audio components not I.
I said more than once that diferent folks hear differently depending
on their preferences, musical education etc. Factors too numerous to
keep relisting in the hope that one day it will get inside thick
heads. Especially hopeless when the thick heads invested 40 years of
promoting their quack remedy.

It is your privilege to market a quack* prescription. It is mine to
point out it is based on thin air.

It is yours to lie about your imaginary research underlying your quack
remedy.
"definately" accepted by JAES. It is mine to show you up.

It is yours to hope the letter from Toronto University denying that any
contributions by A. or AB. Krueger ever appeared in JAES slides into
oblivion. I notice you had nothing to say about it.

It is mine to remind you of it every time you think you can blur the
issues.
Ludovic Mirabel
*Quack remedy. A remedy without any evidential, research backing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>>> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>>> You're trapped now..
>>
>> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed
>> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
>> determining the presence of small differences among
>> audio products.
>
> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the
> cornfield, Arny. He has a sign hanging about his neck
> saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
> discussion, Arny?"

Harry, you mentioned sighted evaluations simply by posting your name.
Everybody knows that you lack the expertiese, devotion to accuracy and audio
expertise required to perform a proper bias-controlled listening test.
You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > > wrote in message
> > >> > oups.com
> > >> >
> > >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> > >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> > >> >> You're trapped now..
> > >> >
> > >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> > >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> > >> > differences among audio products.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
> > >> a
> > >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> > >> this
> > >> discussion, Arny?"
> > >
> > > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> > > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> > > not a viable alternative. What is?
> > >
> >
> > If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> > preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
> > synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
> > long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> > evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
>
> What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
> were
> inconclusive?
>
> BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
> of
> providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
>
> > And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> > I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
> >
> > For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
> > or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
> > purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
> > fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
> > listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> > want to buy.
>
> I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
> and
> the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
>
> ScottW
===========================================
ScottW says:
I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your
techniques
> and
> the hobbyist could read about those results as well.

Still yearning for a recipe for most plesurable listening.ScottW
We're not in the area of commercial marketing.of commercial wares.
We're in the area of likes and dislikes, of aesthetic preferences. .Any
"test" would be testees, human beings with different genetics, sex,
different musical preferences and education.

It would be read by thousands of human beings with different genetics,
sex, different musical preferences and education.

If it were signed by J.Gordon Holt or Kal Rubinson I'd take notice of
it on well grounded chance that their preferences meet mine. If it
were signed by many others...into the waste paper basket.
Not an effort worth making..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in

> > So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> > convincing home consumers of anything?
>
> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD
> format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that
> are less accurate.

You draw unsupported conclusions. No wonder you're a hack as a
'scientist.'

The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players
and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their
music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to
"overkill."

But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to
formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily
prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." Now you
seem to be OK with people prederring iPods and MP3 players, for
example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less
accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.

I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily
listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a
"bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who
"happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an
iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format."

Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is?

Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-)

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is
> not a critical issue or a scientific issue.

Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability
are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from
commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero
testing.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>>> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>>> You're trapped now..
>>
>> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed
>> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
>> determining the presence of small differences among
>> audio products.

<no relevant reply>

[George M. Middius]

Has the Krooborg been saddled with a ghostborg?

> expertiese
> expertise

A new version of "selective editing", courtesy of Dr. Not. ;-)




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg is feeling neglected.

> >> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic]
> >> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
> >> determining the presence of small differences among
> >> audio products.

> <no relevant reply>

Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply
offended your delicate sensibilities:

You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover.
You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a
blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job.

Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-)






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> > > > compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> > > > speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>
> You forgot....in the store or home.
> > >
> > >
> > > What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
> > > level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
> > > preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
> >
> > None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
> > the store or home situation.
>
> I can see a problem in the store but I think we all accept that even
> sighted
> listening is problematic for comparing gear in most stores.
> But what is preventing you from conducting the tests in your home?
>
> ScottW

Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply read
> >>>>> the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
> >>>
> >>> Point?
> >> ]
> >> And your explanation for your ignorance of significant
> >> details of that discussion are....????
> >
> > I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.
> >
> >>
> >>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing (and
> >>>>> never claiming to know anything about it), I ask a
> >>>>> simple question: "When participating in an ABX
> >>>>> test....")
> >>
> >>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her own
> >>>> ABX tests by downloading some files and programs from
> >>>> www.pcabx.com.
> >>>
> >>>> Why has she not done so?
> >>
> >>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> >>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> >>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
> >>
> >>
> >> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
> >> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
> >> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
> >> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
>
> > None that I know of.
>
> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded best-of-class.

Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or the average
consumer.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
> >>>>>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
> >>>>>>>>>> passage listening,
> >>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
> >>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
> >>>>>>>> listener bias.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
> >>>>>>> solution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
> >>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
> >>>>>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
> >>>>>> doesn't seem like a good solution.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
> >>>>> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
> >>>>> consumer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
> >>>> the great job it has done at convincing home consumers
> >>>> that contrary to many things published in the high end
> >>>> audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of
> >>>> money.
> >>
> >>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
> >>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
> >>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> >>>> audible.
> >>
> >>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> >>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
>
> > So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> > convincing home consumers of anything?
>
> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the CD
> format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats that
> are less accurate.

What does the above have to do with ABX?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> od
>>>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>>>>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>>>>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain
>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum comfort with their selection...quick
>>>>>>>>>>>> switch, long passage listening,
>>>>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>>>>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
>>>>>>>>>> listener bias.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
>>>>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
>>>>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that
>>>>>>>> certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than
>>>>>>>> any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a
>>>>>>> totally impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis
>>>>>>> the home consumer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
>>>>>> the great job it has done at convincing home
>>>>>> consumers that contrary to many things published in
>>>>>> the high end audio press, audio snake oil products
>>>>>> are a waste of money.
>>>>
>>>>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
>>>>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
>>>>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
>>>>>> audible.
>>>>
>>>>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
>>>>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
>>
>>> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
>>> convincing home consumers of anything?
>>
>> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to
>> think that the CD format is an overkill format, and that
>> they happily listen to formats that are less accurate.
>
> What does the above have to do with ABX?

ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and
show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of
consumers have agreed with their dollars.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>> pr
> >>>>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maximum comfort with their selection...quick
> >>>>>>>>>>>> switch, long passage listening,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
> >>>>>>>>>> listener bias.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
> >>>>>>>>> solution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
> >>>>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that
> >>>>>>>> certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than
> >>>>>>>> any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a
> >>>>>>> totally impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis
> >>>>>>> the home consumer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
> >>>>>> the great job it has done at convincing home
> >>>>>> consumers that contrary to many things published in
> >>>>>> the high end audio press, audio snake oil products
> >>>>>> are a waste of money.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
> >>>>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
> >>>>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> >>>>>> audible.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> >>>>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
> >>
> >>> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> >>> convincing home consumers of anything?
> >>
> >> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to
> >> think that the CD format is an overkill format, and that
> >> they happily listen to formats that are less accurate.
> >
> > What does the above have to do with ABX?
>
> ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and
> show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of
> consumers have agreed with their dollars.

Well, good on 'em.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply
>>>>>>> read the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
>>>>>
>>>>> Point?
>>>> ]
>>>> And your explanation for your ignorance of significant
>>>> details of that discussion are....????
>>>
>>> I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing
>>>>>>> (and never claiming to know anything about it), I
>>>>>>> ask a simple question: "When participating in an
>>>>>>> ABX test....")
>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her
>>>>>> own ABX tests by downloading some files and programs
>>>>>> from www.pcabx.com.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why has she not done so?
>>>>
>>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
>>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
>>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
>>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
>>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
>>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
>>
>>> None that I know of.
>>
>> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded
>> best-of-class.
>
> Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or
> the average consumer.

Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people.

I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational
as ABX could help you.

The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio
industry subjective testing that it spawned.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
>>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
>>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>>
>> You forgot....in the store or home.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
>>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
>>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
>>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
>>>
>>> None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is
>>> a solution in the store or home situation.
>>
>> I can see a problem in the store but I think we all
>> accept that even sighted
>> listening is problematic for comparing gear in most
>> stores. But what is preventing you from conducting the
>> tests in your home?
>>
>> ScottW
>
> Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose.

Jenn won't accept any compromises, This allows here to justify not changing
her thinking.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > > wrote in message
> > > >> > oups.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> > > >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> > > >> >> You're trapped now..
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> > > >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> > > >> > differences among audio products.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
> > > >> a
> > > >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> > > >> this
> > > >> discussion, Arny?"
> > > >
> > > > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> > > > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> > > > not a viable alternative. What is?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> > > preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
> > > synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
> > > long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> > > evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
> >
> > What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
> > were
> > inconclusive?
> >
> > BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
> > of
> > providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
> >
> > > And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> > > I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
> > >
> > > For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
> > > or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
> > > purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
> > > fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
> > > listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> > > want to buy.
> >
> > I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
> > and
> > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
> >
> > ScottW
> ===========================================
> ScottW says:
> I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your
> techniques
> > and
> > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
>
> Still yearning for a recipe for most plesurable listening.ScottW

Well....yes ...you think you've found audio nirvana?

> We're not in the area of commercial marketing.of commercial wares.
> We're in the area of likes and dislikes, of aesthetic preferences.

Aesthetics as in appearance? No..we are not.

> .Any
> "test" would be testees, human beings with different genetics, sex,
> different musical preferences and education.
>
> It would be read by thousands of human beings with different genetics,
> sex, different musical preferences and education.
>
> If it were signed by J.Gordon Holt or Kal Rubinson I'd take notice of
> it on well grounded chance that their preferences meet mine.

Actually...thats exactly what I had in mind.

> If it
> were signed by many others...into the waste paper basket.
> Not an effort worth making..

I'm sure the oft quoted Mr. Olive is most disappointed.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
>> > So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
>> > convincing home consumers of anything?
>>
>> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the
>> CD
>> format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats
>> that
>> are less accurate.
>
> You draw unsupported conclusions. No wonder you're a hack as a
> 'scientist.'
>
> The conclusion that I would draw is that some people prefer MP3 players
> and iPods as a far more convenient way to store and transport their
> music. I doubt that most home consumers ever give thought to
> "overkill."
>
> But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily listen to
> formats that are less accurate." How about, "they seem to happily
> prefer formats that are less accurate (for whatever reasons)." Now you
> seem to be OK with people prederring iPods and MP3 players, for
> example, but if somebody prefers something that you consider "less
> accurate" as a matter of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
>
> I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone who "happily
> listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like LP or SET is a
> "bigot" deserving of bucketloads of snot, while someone else who
> "happily listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or an
> iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an overkill format."
>
> Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your 'thinking' is?
>
> Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is it?;-)

Oh, come on now, Shhh. You miss the point. The iPod and MP3 players are
digital. That gives them Arny's seal of approval automatically. Oh, I'm
sorry, you did mention "religion" in another post, didn't you? :-)

[ScottW]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > > wrote in message
> >> >> > oups.com
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> >> >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> >> >> >> You're trapped now..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> >> >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> >> >> > differences among audio products.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He
> >> >> has
> >> >> a
> >> >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> >> >> this
> >> >> discussion, Arny?"
> >> >
> >> > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> >> > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> >> > not a viable alternative. What is?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> >> preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a
> >> blind,
> >> synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over
> >> a
> >> long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> >> evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
> >
> > What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
> > were
> > inconclusive?
>
> I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then
> restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both samples
> rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and order
> bias).

The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I also find it a
bit interesting
in this test scenario that the preference will be influenced by the
selected
standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results will be "good".
Would you review everything against your personal preferred components?
>
> >
> > BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
> > of
> > providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
> >
>
> I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you
> are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful
> information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the
> test.
>
> >> And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> >> I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
> >>
> >> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical
> >> issue
> >> or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after
> >> the
> >> purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening
> >> is
> >> fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to,
> >> by
> >> listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> >> want to buy.
> >
> > I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
> > and
> > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using
> sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show how
> it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to organize
> and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research
> organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical
> evaluation.

I don't think all that is necessary for implementing testing during
reviews.
I'm sure a relatively simple automated
AB or ABX tester wouldn't be very difficult to develop. PC or laptop
based
and it could be easily configured for AB difference, preference ABX
etc.
Most have been done before.
Once available reviewers would be able to self test with only a
moderate amount
of trust required. They needn't even know results.

> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget
> and the sophistication to want to do so.

You're talking about market research while I'm thinking of a much
simpler
scale applied by the reviewers.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is
>> not a critical issue or a scientific issue.
>
> Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability
> are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from
> commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero
> testing.

The defender of "scientific proof" stands upright, lance vertical and still,
his banner attached and flapping gently in the wind. He is ready to smite
the Legions of Harry. Ever vigilant, he has his synched PC samples ready
for the showdown. (to be continued).

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> .
>> >> com
>> >>> In article
>> >>> >, "Arny
>> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> >>>> message
>> >>>>
>> >>>> y.
>> >>>> com
>> >>>>> In article
>> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> >>>>>> message
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ig
>> >>>>>> y.
>> >>>>>> com
>> >>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>> >,
>> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>> >>>>>>>> in message
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> od
>> >>>>>>>> ig
>> >>>>>>>> y.
>> >>>>>>>> com
>> >>>>>>>>> In article >,
>> >>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
>> >>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
>> >>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain maximum
>> >>>>>>>>>> comfort with their selection...quick switch, long
>> >>>>>>>>>> passage listening,
>> >>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
>> >>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
>> >>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
>> >>>>>>>> listener bias.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
>> >>>>>>> solution.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
>> >>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that certain
>> >>>>>> LPs can capture violin sounds better than any CD, ABX
>> >>>>>> doesn't seem like a good solution.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a totally
>> >>>>> impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis the home
>> >>>>> consumer.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
>> >>>> the great job it has done at convincing home consumers
>> >>>> that contrary to many things published in the high end
>> >>>> audio press, audio snake oil products are a waste of
>> >>>> money.
>> >>
>> >>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
>> >>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
>> >>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
>> >>>> audible.
>> >>
>> >>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
>> >>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
>>
>> > So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
>> > convincing home consumers of anything?
>>
>> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to think that the
>> CD
>> format is an overkill format, and that they happily listen to formats
>> that
>> are less accurate.
>
> What does the above have to do with ABX?

Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from expensive sound. Arny's
ABX box gave birth to "Best Buy". Arny's ABX box is the *reason* CD's
succeeded. Arny has single handedly liberated the masses from their analog
yoke via his ABX box.....without them even being aware of it! Arny's just
knows this is so!

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> > > > > compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> > > > > speakers) using music that is well known to me.
> >
> > You forgot....in the store or home.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing time-synched,
> > > > level-matched, bias-controlled tests of turntables (or CD players, or
> > > > preamps, or speakers) using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
> > >
> > > None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is a solution in
> > > the store or home situation.
> >
> > I can see a problem in the store but I think we all accept that even
> > sighted
> > listening is problematic for comparing gear in most stores.
> > But what is preventing you from conducting the tests in your home?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose

I've posted a link to a box design based on readily available parts.
Cost was estimated at ~ $100.
Getting gear depends on your purpose. If you're in the market most
hi-end sales have at least some return period for a home trial.

Personally, I don't bother with it either.... but I don't refute the
validity of the tests for those who want to "prove" something.

ScottW

[paul packer]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:45:11 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>The Krooborg is feeling neglected.
>
>> >> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic]
>> >> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
>> >> determining the presence of small differences among
>> >> audio products.
>
>> <no relevant reply>
>
>Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply
>offended your delicate sensibilities:
>
>You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover.
>You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a
>blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job.
>
>Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-)

Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas.

[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Harry Lavo wrote:
>> >> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > > wrote in message
>> >> >> > oups.com
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>> >> >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>> >> >> >> You're trapped now..
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
>> >> >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of
>> >> >> > small
>> >> >> > differences among audio products.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny.
>> >> >> He
>> >> >> has
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> discussion, Arny?"
>> >> >
>> >> > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
>> >> > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
>> >> > not a viable alternative. What is?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
>> >> preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a
>> >> blind,
>> >> synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test
>> >> over
>> >> a
>> >> long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
>> >> evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
>> >
>> > What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
>> > were
>> > inconclusive?
>>
>> I'd gather diagnostic (rating-scale) data on the monadic phase, and then
>> restrict the comparison phase to a simple prefer A or prefer B (both
>> samples
>> rotated blindly and randomly, of course, to eliminate both sighted and
>> order
>> bias).
>
> The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I also find it a
> bit interesting
> in this test scenario that the preference will be influenced by the
> selected
> standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results will be "good".
> Would you review everything against your personal preferred components?

Yes, I'd always have a known benchmark as one of the variables.

One of my reservations about how the audio mags (all of them) do their
evaluations is that they never keep a known, standard, benchmark system for
comparison...so what comparisons are made are always against a rolling
standard. Actually, Tony Cordesman probably comes closest in that regard,
as he has used the same speakers for years, and seems to use them as a
reference. John continues to use a Linn, but I can't remember a turntable
review by him recently, if ever.


>>
>> >
>> > BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
>> > of
>> > providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
>> >
>>
>> I agree...its a matter of matching up the best test for the situation you
>> are researching. Best, in this case, means giving you the most useful
>> information for whatever purpose you have for which you are running the
>> test.
>>
>> >> And if I wanted to do a validation test,
>> >> I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
>> >>
>> >> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical
>> >> issue
>> >> or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until
>> >> after
>> >> the
>> >> purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted
>> >> listening
>> >> is
>> >> fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want
>> >> to,
>> >> by
>> >> listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear
>> >> they
>> >> want to buy.
>> >
>> > I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
>> > and
>> > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests myself, using
>> sophisticated and extensive tests. If for no other reason than to show
>> how
>> it could/should be done. But it takes lots of time and money to
>> organize
>> and conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an outside research
>> organization to help with the planning, logistics, and statistical
>> evaluation.
>
> I don't think all that is necessary for implementing testing during
> reviews.
> I'm sure a relatively simple automated
> AB or ABX tester wouldn't be very difficult to develop. PC or laptop
> based
> and it could be easily configured for AB difference, preference ABX
> etc.
> Most have been done before.
> Once available reviewers would be able to self test with only a
> moderate amount
> of trust required. They needn't even know results.

Well, yes that could be done. But first I would want the test validated for
open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that in turn would require a
large scale validation test (what you call a market research test) in order
to determine if the simpler tests can give the same results. At this point
based on what I know, I would not start by trying to use ABX. Instead I'd
use a simpler and more useful comparison test....prefer A, prefer B, prefer
both equally....with statistical evaluation to follow. Actually, we did
pretty extensive test development while I was with General Foods and found
that five or seven point scales showed the most discrimination...but they
are harder to evaluate statistically. So if I had the statistical knowledge
in the form of a third party, I'd probably go with a five point: "greatly
prefer A", "slightly prefer A", "prefer both equally", "slightly prefer B",
and "greatly prefer B". Of course the test must be blind, and A and B must
be random and balanced, and must not be labeled A and B. We actually used
odd nomenclature to avoid even labeling bias: 571 vs. 584, for example.
Or I vs. J.

>
>> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget
>> and the sophistication to want to do so.
>
> You're talking about market research while I'm thinking of a much
> simpler
> scale applied by the reviewers.
>
> ScottW
>

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >The Krooborg is feeling neglected.

> >> >> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic]
> >> >> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
> >> >> determining the presence of small differences among
> >> >> audio products.

> >> <no relevant reply>

> >Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply
> >offended your delicate sensibilities:

> >You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover.
> >You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a
> >blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job.

> >Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-)

> Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas.

I don't celebrate Xmas personally, but in fact my reply to Krooger's
whinging was not unkind. You will note that my post has no mentions of how
Mr. **** encourages his poor wife to turn tricks in the alley, nor any
exhortations for him to do away with himself. Nor did I mention Krooger's
krazy, krappy version of kristianity. How much more kindness does Turdborg
deserve?



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply
> >>>>>>> read the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Point?
> >>>> ]
> >>>> And your explanation for your ignorance of significant
> >>>> details of that discussion are....????
> >>>
> >>> I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it. Simple.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing
> >>>>>>> (and never claiming to know anything about it), I
> >>>>>>> ask a simple question: "When participating in an
> >>>>>>> ABX test....")
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her
> >>>>>> own ABX tests by downloading some files and programs
> >>>>>> from www.pcabx.com.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Why has she not done so?
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> >>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> >>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
> >>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
> >>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
> >>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
> >>
> >>> None that I know of.
> >>
> >> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded
> >> best-of-class.
> >
> > Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me or
> > the average consumer.
>
> Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people.

When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct.

>
> I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that nothing as rational
> as ABX could help you.

I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that nothing as normal
as the enjoyment of music reaches you.

>
> The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the revolution in audio
> industry subjective testing that it spawned.

Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> >>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> >>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
> >>
> >> You forgot....in the store or home.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
> >>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
> >>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
> >>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
> >>>
> >>> None that I know of. But that doesn't mean that ABX is
> >>> a solution in the store or home situation.
> >>
> >> I can see a problem in the store but I think we all
> >> accept that even sighted
> >> listening is problematic for comparing gear in most
> >> stores. But what is preventing you from conducting the
> >> tests in your home?
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Availability of the gear and the box, I suppose.
>
> Jenn won't accept any compromises, This allows here to justify not changing
> her thinking.

Are you getting enough sleep?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:11:46 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >The Krooborg is feeling neglected.
>
>> >> >> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed[sic]
>> >> >> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
>> >> >> determining the presence of small differences among
>> >> >> audio products.
>
>> >> <no relevant reply>
>
>> >Allow me to give you another choice, since Ludo's reasonable reply
>> >offended your delicate sensibilities:
>
>> >You, Arnii Krooger, are a filthy turd masquerading as a "science" lover.
>> >You are, at various times, a religious zealot, an unthinking automaton, a
>> >blithering idiot, and a demented paranoid whack-job.
>
>> >Come to think of it, maybe the times aren't so varied after all. ;-)
>
>> Be kind, George. It's coming on Christmas.
>
>I don't celebrate Xmas personally, but in fact my reply to Krooger's
>whinging was not unkind. You will note that my post has no mentions of how
>Mr. **** encourages his poor wife to turn tricks in the alley, nor any
>exhortations for him to do away with himself. Nor did I mention Krooger's
>krazy, krappy version of kristianity. How much more kindness does Turdborg
>deserve?

You are indeed the epitome of human compassion, George.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>
>>>> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
>>>> convincing home consumers of anything?
>>>
>>> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem
>>> to think that the CD
>>> format is an overkill format, and that they happily
>>> listen to formats that
>>> are less accurate.

>> The conclusion that I would draw is that some people
>> prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient
>> way to store and transport their music. I doubt that
>> most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill."

Sure they do, but probably not in exactly those terms.

>> But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily
>> listen to formats that are less accurate." How about,
>> "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less
>> accurate (for whatever reasons)."

What's the difference in the real world? Nothing. You're just playing with
words.

>>Now you seem to be OK
>> with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for
>> example, but if somebody prefers something that you
>> consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other
>> reasons, you short-circuit.

This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. I don't "short
circuit". If anything its you who short circuit when you demonstrate your
confusion over inputs and outputs.

As usual Robert you've misrepresented everything because you have no
appreciation for the basics. I simply find it very interesting when people
are so prejudices and biased that they repeatedly claim that an audibly
inaccurate format does a more realistic job of reproducing sounds than one
that can be audibly accurate. I suspect its a study in personal bias - one
where a person has been educated to believe that in essence, black is white.

>> I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone
>> who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less
>> accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of
>> bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily
>> listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or
>> an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an
>> overkill format."

It's the same problem - the SET and LP bigots are examples of bias gone
amok - they seem to truely believe that something that is audibly flawed is
the reference standard, and that there is something inherently wrong with a
mediaum that can be sonically transparent. These people believe that black
is white, and up is down.

In contrast, the so-called high resolution formats have failed in the
marketplace because they have nothing that is real and tangible to sell.
They are selling the emperor's new britches. The public is not impressed
with a public display of the bare butts of people who prefer trousers made
of whole cloth.

>> Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your
>> 'thinking' is?

>> Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is
>> it?;-)

The irony is that the person making this joke is well-known for their lack
of personal awareness. Who tried to sue Drexel University for a PhD? The
regulars on RAP are having a lot of fun at your expense Robert because you
have no clue about real world audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from
> expensive sound.

Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong with that?

Or, Harry are you under the impression that only expensive sound is good
sound, and all reasonably-priced sound is bad sound?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests
> myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests.

But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is beyond you, Harry.

> If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done.

It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example.

Or, do you have some critiques for them?

> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
> outside research organization to help with the planning,
> logistics, and statistical evaluation.

Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of
technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in
consumer testing.

> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the
> sophistication to want to do so.

Prove it.

> Fortunately, I worked
> 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such
> research is a way of life.

Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse of consumer testing
by his employers.

> To give you an example, even
> the "small" Division I helped build for one such company
> had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing
> budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just
> under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year
> on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually
> testing, or buying data to analyze).

We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because
they aren't spending enough money?

Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo. The
only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend megabucks.
It is all about money, and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of
audio products is way beyond the budget of the average audiophile.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

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

>> The possibility of inconclusive results remains. I
>> also find it a bit interesting
>> in this test scenario that the preference will be
>> influenced by the selected
>> standard and isn't conclusive at all that the results
>> will be "good". Would you review everything against your
>> personal preferred components?

Harry's definition of an "Inconclusive test": One that does not support the
validity of the snake-oil technology that captured his fancy this week.

> Yes, I'd always have a known benchmark as one of the
> variables.

Whatever that means.

> One of my reservations about how the audio mags (all of
> them) do their evaluations is that they never keep a
> known, standard, benchmark system for comparison...so
> what comparisons are made are always against a rolling
> standard.

It's not that difficult in many cases. The absolute standard for every CD
player, every preamp, and every amplifier or its equivalent is the same - a
short straight piece of wire.

Of course the snake oil merchants that Harry seems to think are credible
have even fuzzed up this picture - they've raised the question of how pure
the copper in the wire needs to be, whether it must actually be silver,
whether stranded wire is OK, and what the insulation around the wire needs
to be made out of.

> Actually, Tony Cordesman probably comes
> closest in that regard, as he has used the same speakers
> for years, and seems to use them as a reference.

False claim.

Cordesman says in a relatively recent review:

http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/PDF_files/PDF_reviews/MCS1R_pdf/MCS1R_Cordesman.pdf

"I should also note that I am convinced enough with the overall merits of
Thiel designs to use the Thiel CS7.2 as one om my references."

Key phrase: "one of my references". We don't know which reference he is
using at any given time without decoding his reviews, and if then.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is
>>> not a critical issue or a scientific issue.
>>
>> Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like
>> truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you.
>> Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about
>> professional audio issues based on what you admit is
>> zero testing.
>
> The defender of "scientific proof" stands upright, lance
> vertical and still, his banner attached and flapping
> gently in the wind. He is ready to smite the Legions of
> Harry. Ever vigilant, he has his synched PC samples
> ready for the showdown. (to be continued).

Note Harry's promise to fabricate even more childish BS of the kind shown
above. Be still my heart!

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests
>> myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests.
>
> But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is beyond you, Harry.
>
>> If for no other reason than to show how it could/should be done.
>
> It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example.
>
> Or, do you have some critiques for them?
>
>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>> outside research organization to help with the planning,
>> logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>
> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of
> technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in
> consumer testing.
>
>> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the
>> sophistication to want to do so.
>
> Prove it.
>
>> Fortunately, I worked
>> 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such
>> research is a way of life.
>
> Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse of consumer
> testing by his employers.
>
>> To give you an example, even
>> the "small" Division I helped build for one such company
>> had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing
>> budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just
>> under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year
>> on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually
>> testing, or buying data to analyze).
>
> We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because
> they aren't spending enough money?
>
> Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo.
> The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend
> megabucks. It is all about money, and true high fidelity or even good
> evaluations of audio products is way beyond the budget of the average
> audiophile.

Notice Arny's lack of substantive reply....just an attack on using experts
to do a professional job of research because they cost money.

And, BTW, who do you supose works with those experts to define objectives,
discuss proposed designs, althernatives, and options, attend sessions to
monitor, and review and discuss results? And who has over 23 years of
experience doing this? Hint: it's not Arny.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from
>> expensive sound.
>
> Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong with that?
>
> Or, Harry are you under the impression that only expensive sound is good
> sound, and all reasonably-priced sound is bad sound?
>

Did you specialize in non-sequitor in college, Arny?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Don't you see. Arny's ABX box saved the world from
>>> expensive sound.
>>
>> Let's say that this is true, Harry. What would be wrong
>> with that? Or, Harry are you under the impression that only
>> expensive sound is good sound, and all reasonably-priced
>> sound is bad sound?
>
> Did you specialize in non-sequitor in college, Arny?

No Harry, but reading your posts has re-introduced me to the concept.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is
>> not a critical issue or a scientific issue.
>
> Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like truth and reliability
> are completely irrelevant to you. Of course this hasn't kept you from
> commenting about professional audio issues based on what you admit is zero
> testing.

Not an "omitted center" Arny...an almost completely "omitted logic". Arny's
motto: "non-sequitors are us"

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com
>>>
>>>> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
>>>> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
>>>> You're trapped now..
>>>
>>> Please provide a proper citation of a referreed
>>> scientific paper validating sighted listening as a
>>> determining the presence of small differences among
>>> audio products.
>>
>> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the
>> cornfield, Arny. He has a sign hanging about his neck
>> saying "who mentioned sighted listening in this
>> discussion, Arny?"
>
> Harry, you mentioned sighted evaluations simply by posting your name.
> Everybody knows that you lack the expertiese, devotion to accuracy and
> audio expertise required to perform a proper bias-controlled listening
> test. You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies.

Another non-sequitor non-response from our man Arnold.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I wouldn't mind seeing a few fairly extensive tests
>>> myself, using sophisticated and extensive tests.
>>
>> But unfortunately, even simple and limited testing is
>> beyond you, Harry.
>>> If for no other reason than to show how it
>>> could/should be done.
>>
>> It's been done many times, JJ's MPEG tests for example.
>>
>> Or, do you have some critiques for them?
>>
>>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>>> outside research organization to help with the planning,
>>> logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>>
>> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his
>> personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry
>> has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing.
>>
>>> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the
>>> budget and the sophistication to want to do so.
>>
>> Prove it.
>>
>>> Fortunately, I worked
>>> 23 years for consumer packaged goods firms where such
>>> research is a way of life.
>>
>> Harry has on occasion expressed his rage over the abuse
>> of consumer testing by his employers.
>>
>>> To give you an example, even
>>> the "small" Division I helped build for one such company
>>> had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing
>>> budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just
>>> under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a
>>> year on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually
>>> testing, or buying data to analyze).
>>
>> We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's
>> standards because they aren't spending enough money?

>> Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now
>> from Harry Lavo. The only way to have good sound or good
>> lisetning tests is to spend megabucks. It is all about
>> money, and true high fidelity or even good evaluations
>> of audio products is way beyond the budget of the
>> average audiophile.

> Notice Arny's lack of substantive reply....just an attack
> on using experts to do a professional job of research
> because they cost money.

There is no such thing, except in your mind, Harry.

> And, BTW, who do you supose works with those experts to
> define objectives, discuss proposed designs,
> althernatives, and options, attend sessions to monitor,
> and review and discuss results? And who has over 23
> years of experience doing this? Hint: it's not Arny.

The bottom line Harry is that with your years of pontificating on the
matter, you have nothing but irrelevant criticisms to bring to the table.

Harry, it is quite clear to me that you're playing the Atkinson card -
falsely make good subjective tests too complex and expensive for anybody to
be able to do, and then use those likes to give yourself free passes to
foist the most specious crap that can be imagined onto the world of audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is
>>> not a critical issue or a scientific issue.
>>
>> Right Harry - if it is about home audio, issues like
>> truth and reliability are completely irrelevant to you.
>> Of course this hasn't kept you from commenting about
>> professional audio issues based on what you admit is
>> zero testing.
>
> Not an "omitted center" Arny...an almost completely
> "omitted logic". Arny's motto: "non-sequitors are us"

Lack of relevant response noted.

Childish name-calling noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ig
>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply
>>>>>>>>> read the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Point?
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> And your explanation for your ignorance of
>>>>>> significant details of that discussion are....????
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it.
>>>>> Simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing
>>>>>>>>> (and never claiming to know anything about it), I
>>>>>>>>> ask a simple question: "When participating in an
>>>>>>>>> ABX test....")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her
>>>>>>>> own ABX tests by downloading some files and
>>>>>>>> programs from www.pcabx.com.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why has she not done so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
>>>>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
>>>>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
>>>>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
>>>>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
>>>>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
>>>>
>>>>> None that I know of.
>>>>
>>>> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded
>>>> best-of-class.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me
>>> or the average consumer.
>>
>> Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very
>> different types of people.
>
> When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct.

Right Jenn, you live in such a lofty ivory tower that you're constantly
suffering from low blood oxygen, and reasonble thought often escapes you.


>> I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that
>> nothing as rational as ABX could help you.

> I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that
> nothing as normal as the enjoyment of music reaches you.

Delusions of omniscience noted.

>> The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the
>> revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it
>> spawned.

> Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear.

Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto
selecting audio gear.

In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of
course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
death's-gip on the choice of music for the audition. And, no way could we
get the high end turntable vendors to cooperate, because any reasonable
comparison would probably show that they sound a lot alike, because they
reduce the audible flaws in the LP playback process to the very audible ones
that are inherent in the medium.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Rather than attempting a juvenile insult, simply
> >>>>>>>>> read the above. Allow me to summarize for you:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1. There is a discussion about ABX testing.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's been going on for about a decade.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Point?
> >>>>>> ]
> >>>>>> And your explanation for your ignorance of
> >>>>>> significant details of that discussion are....????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I haven't cared enough to pay attention to it.
> >>>>> Simple.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2. Knowing virtually nothing about such testing
> >>>>>>>>> (and never claiming to know anything about it), I
> >>>>>>>>> ask a simple question: "When participating in an
> >>>>>>>>> ABX test....")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn has been told many times that she could do her
> >>>>>>>> own ABX tests by downloading some files and
> >>>>>>>> programs from www.pcabx.com.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why has she not done so?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I can't see how it aids in doing what I want to do:
> >>>>>>> compare turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or
> >>>>>>> speakers) using music that is well known to me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What alternative non-ABX tools you have for doing
> >>>>>> time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled tests of
> >>>>>> turntables (or CD players, or preamps, or speakers)
> >>>>>> using music that is well known to you, Jenn?
> >>>>
> >>>>> None that I know of.
> >>>>
> >>>> I thussly conclude that ABX should be awarded
> >>>> best-of-class.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it's useful to me
> >>> or the average consumer.
> >>
> >> Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very
> >> different types of people.
> >
> > When it comes to music and sound, you are quite correct.
>
> Right Jenn, you live in such a lofty ivory tower

lol I love it when you say that. "Delusions of omniscience noted".

> that you're constantly
> suffering from low blood oxygen, and reasonble thought often escapes you.

Ooooo, another snot storm on the way.

>
>
> >> I suspect that you live in such a logic-proof box, that
> >> nothing as rational as ABX could help you.
>
> > I suspect that you live in such a art-proof box that
> > nothing as normal as the enjoyment of music reaches you.
>
> Delusions of omniscience noted.

Look three paragraphs up, Mr. Pot.

>
> >> The average consumer's largest benefit from ABX was the
> >> revolution in audio industry subjective testing that it
> >> spawned.
>
> > Great. That doesn't aid me in the selection of audio gear.
>
> Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto
> selecting audio gear.

Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
How do you do it?

>
> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high end turntables. Of
> course no way can we get high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
> death's-gip

lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that which sounds most
like live acoustic music to me. Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes
it's digital.

> on the choice of music for the audition. And, no way could we
> get the high end turntable vendors to cooperate, because any reasonable
> comparison would probably show that they sound a lot alike, because they
> reduce the audible flaws in the LP playback process to the very audible ones
> that are inherent in the medium.

Well, thanks for your opinion. Keep listening to what sounds best to
you; that's the sane thing to do.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

> You're like impotent man who rants and raves about vasectomies.

"at least" its better than you, a certified lunatic
that rants and raves about lobotomies and eye gougings required for
PCABX

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:

>
> Jenn, you and the average consumer are two very different types of people.
>

Those of here that can't stand you are well above average consumers.
So stop annoying us Get a reviewing job at Consumer Reports.
You will be much more productive.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high
>> end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end
>> turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip

> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
> which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.

Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other
recordings lack.

> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.

So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>> .
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> in message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> od
> >>>>>>>>>> ig
> >>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the listener has control of the source
> >>>>>>>>>>>> selector...which IMO, they should...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> they can do whatever they want to obtain
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maximum comfort with their selection...quick
> >>>>>>>>>>>> switch, long passage listening,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> music, pink noise, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That seems like a positive.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> People here ranting against ABX
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are generally not looking for
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solutions....they're looking for excuses.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Solutions to what?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ABX is a solution to the well-known problem of
> >>>>>>>>>> listener bias.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From a consumer POV it doesn't seem like a good
> >>>>>>>>> solution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Jenn?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From the standpoint of a consumer who is in that
> >>>>>>>> infinitesimal minority that still thinks that
> >>>>>>>> certain LPs can capture violin sounds better than
> >>>>>>>> any CD, ABX doesn't seem like a good solution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why not tell the whole truth, Arny? ABX is a
> >>>>>>> totally impractical solution for anything vis-a-vis
> >>>>>>> the home consumer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nahhh, the whole problem with ABX for many people is
> >>>>>> the great job it has done at convincing home
> >>>>>> consumers that contrary to many things published in
> >>>>>> the high end audio press, audio snake oil products
> >>>>>> are a waste of money.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> ABX has also done a good job of convincing home
> >>>>>> consumers and audio pros thatwhatever technical
> >>>>>> limitations the 16/44 CD format may have, they aren't
> >>>>>> audible.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I see. So what percentage of home consumers do you
> >>>>> figure have ever even HEARD of ABX?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I don't run a market research organization.
> >>
> >>> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> >>> convincing home consumers of anything?
> >>
> >> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem to
> >> think that the CD format is an overkill format, and that
> >> they happily listen to formats that are less accurate.
> >
> > What does the above have to do with ABX?
>
> ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and
> show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of
> consumers have agreed with their dollars.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Krueger says:

> ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high resolution" audio formats and
> show that CD audio format is sonically transparent. The vast majority of
> consumers have agreed with their dollars.

We already know that your "tests" have "It all souns the same" outcome.

What you ha not proved is that your "test" helps listeners to
recognise differences.between audio components reproducing music.

If I were the editor of a professional journal I would tell you to come
back when you have something serious to contribute.

Which they probably did . Which made you instantly try to get
recognition by flooding the web.with advertising material


Your vast majority of consumers are happy with their choices. Which
proves what? That "vast majority" never attended a single classical
music concert or cared about superior reproduction of a symphony
orchestra or chamber group.? You're free to follow their choices I'll
listen with my ears and my brain.
Ludovic Mirabel

More about "I definitely had papers published in the JAES"

Connie Robinson at UC. Berkeley
"I searched several engineering indexes I'm familiar with, and none
indexed the
author in question for this publication. I think you could probably
look at
table of contents from this period in the print versions. I looked up
the
journal holdings in British Columbia and the following institutions
list
holdings in the period you are looking at:

Title: Journal of the Audio Engineering Society Author: Audio
Engineering
Society ISSN: 1549-4950

CA,BC SIMON FRASER
UNIVERSITY
CA,BC UNIV OF VICTORIA, MCPHERSON
LIBR
CA,BC VANCOUVER PUB LIBR

Please consult these local libraries for more information.

I hope the information I provide is of use to you.

Sincerely,

Corinne Robinson
Ask-a-Reference-Question Service
Research, Reference, and Collections
Doe/Moffitt Libraries
UC Berkeley

"Irrelevant" again? If at least you were a clever liar. But you are a
silly transparent liar hoping never to be foundout






..

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> >> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing high
> >> end turntables. Of course no way can we get high end
> >> turntable buyers to relax their hysterical death's-gip
>
> > lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
> > which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.
>
> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other
> recordings lack.

Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them.

>
> > Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
>
> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding superior to CDs?

That's not what I've stated, and you know it. You should pay more
attention.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > > ups.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Harry Lavo wrote:
> > > > >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> > > wrote in message
> > > > >> > oups.com
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Serve you right, Harry. Discussing ABX as a serious way
> > > > >> >> to compare audio components is grist to Krueger's mill.
> > > > >> >> You're trapped now..
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Please provide a proper citation of a referreed scientific paper
> > > > >> > validating sighted listening as a determining the presence of small
> > > > >> > differences among audio products.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please notice the strawman waving to you in the cornfield, Arny. He has
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> sign hanging about his neck saying "who mentioned sighted listening in
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> discussion, Arny?"
> > > > >
> > > > > So Harry....given your problems with ABX...what alternative would
> > > > > you propose? Apparently you accept that sighted listening is
> > > > > not a viable alternative. What is?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If I really want a "test", I'd do a blind, synched, level-matched A-B
> > > > preference test. If I wanted the very best test possible, I'd do a blind,
> > > > synched, serial proto-monadic with rating scale version of the test over a
> > > > long period of time, until I had enough "trials" to make a statistical
> > > > evaluation fairly sensitive to do.
> > >
> > > What would you do with the monadic results if the paired comparisons
> > > were
> > > inconclusive?
> > >
> > > BTW....my personal opinion is that all these test methods are capable
> > > of
> > > providing meaningful results to researchers and product developers.
> > >
> > > > And if I wanted to do a validation test,
> > > > I'd do the same over at least a hundred carefully chosen subjects.
> > > >
> > > > For most home audio, a "test" is inappropriate as it is not a critical issue
> > > > or a scientific issue...and it is not logistically practical until after the
> > > > purchase if at all. It is simply part of a hobby and sighted listening is
> > > > fine for that purpose....people spend their money the way they want to, by
> > > > listening to, by reading about, and by inspecting visually the gear they
> > > > want to buy.
> > >
> > > I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your techniques
> > > and
> > > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> > ===========================================
> > ScottW says:
> > I agree...it would be nice IMO, if the reviewers used your
> > techniques
> > > and
> > > the hobbyist could read about those results as well.
> >
> > Still yearning for a recipe for most plesurable listening.ScottW
>
> Well....yes ...you think you've found audio nirvana?
>
> > We're not in the area of commercial marketing.of commercial wares.
> > We're in the area of likes and dislikes, of aesthetic preferences.
>
> Aesthetics as in appearance? No..we are not.
>
> > .Any
> > "test" would be testees, human beings with different genetics, sex,
> > different musical preferences and education.
> >
> > It would be read by thousands of human beings with different genetics,
> > sex, different musical preferences and education.
> >
> > If it were signed by J.Gordon Holt or Kal Rubinson I'd take notice of
> > it on well grounded chance that their preferences meet mine.
>
> Actually...thats exactly what I had in mind.
>
> > If it
> > were signed by many others...into the waste paper basket.
> > Not an effort worth making..
>
> I'm sure the oft quoted Mr. Olive is most disappointed.
>
> ScottW
========================
ScottW says:
> I'm sure the oft quoted Mr. Olive is most disappointed

Thanks for bringing up my omission.

I did not mention him because he's not a pop mag reviewer bu the author
of to my knwledge unique research about how cross section of listeners
listen to different loudspeakers.

Completely different from hearing whatn one reviewer heard with or
without a "test". The "test" does not convey any greater authority. It
is still that one guy; "testing" or not

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>> outside research organization to help with the planning,
>> logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>
> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of
> technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in
> consumer testing.
>
You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a
single person could make new discoveries. Today's
science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields.
In one research grant study my department hired a full
time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey
questions and analyze responses. In a true *scientific*
study of your ABX theory would require thousands of
dollars and months such to quantify the subject study
group.

You have one of the finest research universities in the
world (U M) right in your back yard. Perhaps you might
consider submitting a proposal for a PhD thesis. Students
often sweat finding useful studies to write about and
defend. This could get your foot in the door for cheap.


>> Only fairly large organizations usually have both the budget and the
>> sophistication to want to do so.
>
> Prove it.
>
No, Harry is correct. Besides, what would be the
business motivation ($) to enter into such a study.
I don't see any real world applications in
manufacturing, for example. Maybe behavioral
science, but then you're chasing after soft funding.


>> To give you an example, even
>> the "small" Division I helped build for one such company
>> had sales back in the '70's of $325mm, a total marketing
>> budget of $16mm, and of that a research budget of just
>> under $2.0mm. I bet even H-K doesn't spend $2.0mm a year
>> on research (I don't mean development...I mean actually
>> testing, or buying data to analyze).
>
> We should thus conclude that H-K does not meet Harry's standards because
> they aren't spending enough money?
>
> Well there you have it folks, first from Powell and now from Harry Lavo.
> The only way to have good sound or good lisetning tests is to spend
> megabucks.
>
Regardless of the methodology in-home listening is still
the standard... and it ain't broke, so why change it?


> It is all about money,
Well there's science which is money dependant.
And there is empirical knowledge which is almost
free. Both are powerful but you have neither.


> and true high fidelity or even good evaluations of audio products is way
> beyond the budget of the average audiophile.
At least 30 years of audio magazines, of every type,
would indicate that subjective reviewing on the whole
is advancing audio technology just fine, thank you.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said to The Big ****:

> Get a reviewing job at Consumer Reports.
> You will be much more productive.

Wrong! Krooger isn't qualified to be a reviewer. CR might possibly need
some testing wonks to work in their electronics torture chamber, though.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
> > > which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.

> > Which in the past has inexplicably had audible distortion which other
> > recordings lack.

> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds best to them.

Jenn, I've tried in the past to explain the horrific effect comments like
this have on Mr. Krooger and his fellow nitwits. First off, phrases like
"sounds best" or "sounds better" are terribly disorienting to Them. Did
you see Ghostbusters? It had a scene where Venkman and Egon (Harold Ramis)
are trying to determine if they're looking at a manifestation of a ghost.
Egon is tongue-tied and uses his scanning device, and Venkman slaps it out
of his hand in frustration. That's how Krooger approaches every audio
decision -- with his clunky, clueless "testing" mindset.

When Normals talk about subjective, humanistic evaluations like "pleasing"
or "sounds best", they're not just slapping Krooger's hand. They're
attacking his religion, the very pillar of his pathetic existence. In my
view, Krooger deserves any upbraiding or excoriation he gets, but you
should be aware of how cruel you seem to Turdborg when you say things like
that.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from rational approachesto
> > selecting audio gear.
>
> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> How do you do it?

Unanswered by Arny in his previous response to my post.

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >> Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods
> >> and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers
> >> something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter
> >> of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
>
> This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert.

Who's "Robert"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ps.com...
>>>> Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods
>>>> and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers
>>>> something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter
>>>> of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
>>
>> This time you're making it up as you go along again,
>> Robert.
>
> Who's "Robert"?

Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ps.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high
>> resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format
>> is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers
>> have agreed with their dollars.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Krueger says:
>
>> ABX tests have often been used to debunk "high
>> resolution" audio formats and show that CD audio format
>> is sonically transparent. The vast majority of consumers
>> have agreed with their dollars.

> We already know that your "tests" have "It all souns the
> same" outcome.

You are either ignorant or lying. As has been shown many times, ABX tests
are sensitive tests for audible differences when audible differences
actually exist.

> What you have not proved is that your "test" helps
> listeners to recognise differences.between audio
> components reproducing music.

Sure I have. All of the power amplifier PCABX listening tests referenced by
this page have positive outcomes:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>>> outside research organization to help with the planning,
>>> logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>>
>> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his
>> personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry
>> has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing.

> You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a
> single person could make new discoveries. Today's
> science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields.

Non sequitor.

> In one research grant study my department hired a full
> time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey
> questions and analyze responses.


Meaningless unless you identify your university and department so that we
can confirm it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
>>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high
>>>> end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
>>>> death's-gip
>>
>>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
>>> which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.
>>
>> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
>> distortion which other recordings lack.
>
> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds
> best to them.

Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and
other so-called serious music.

Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to
people.

You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn?

>>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.

>> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
>> superior to CDs?

> That's not what I've stated, and you know it.

I know no such thing, Jenn.

> You should pay more attention.

It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the
past.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Jenn wrote:
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
>>> Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from
>>> rational approachesto selecting audio gear.

>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
>> when possible,

Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical
and useful means.

>> using unsighted conditions as are practical,

Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical
and useful means.

>> using source material with which I'm very familiar.

Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid
practical and useful means.

> That's more than most people do, I dare say.

>> How do you do it?

I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and
obtaining good results from it.

I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few
unhappy surprises.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Jenn wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >, "Arny
> >> Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>> Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from
> >>> rational approachesto selecting audio gear.
>
> >> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
> >> when possible,
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid practical
> and useful means.

"Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. The meaning is
clear. "When possible" means when I can get the piece in my home.
Understand?

>
> >> using unsighted conditions as are practical,
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid practical
> and useful means.

"Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. I listen to things
unsighted when it is possible to do so.

>
> >> using source material with which I'm very familiar.
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid
> practical and useful means.

"Debating trade" BS. Normal people understand this. I listen to source
material that I've heard for years under familiar circumstances.

>
> > That's more than most people do, I dare say.
>
> >> How do you do it?
>
> I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and
> obtaining good results from it.
>
> I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very few
> unhappy surprises.

But if you wanted to take the radical approach of listening to something
before you bought it, either in your home or in a store, how would you
do it?

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
>
> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> How do you do it?

How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?

Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>
> >>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
> >>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high
> >>>> end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
> >>>> death's-gip
> >>
> >>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
> >>> which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.
> >>
> >> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
> >> distortion which other recordings lack.
> >
> > Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance, sounds
> > best to them.
>
> Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to classical, jazz and
> other so-called serious music.

Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're speaking of audio
quality.

>
> Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change what sounds good to
> people.

LOL Who said that? You are the most illogical person I've ever read.

>
> You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music education, Jenn?

LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to sing comes to
mind.

>
> >>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
>
> >> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
> >> superior to CDs?
>
> > That's not what I've stated, and you know it.
>
> I know no such thing, Jenn.

Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated, over and over,
is that to me the best LPs sound better than CDs. Understand?

>
> > You should pay more attention.
>
> It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the
> past.

It's about understanding clear writing and not attributing false
statements to another person.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> >
> > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> > How do you do it?
>
> How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
>
> Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
>
> ScottW

If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the
2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article om>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> > > How do you do it?
> >
> > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> >
> > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
> switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the
> 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.

Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
factor than
my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.

In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the
gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple
weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>
>>>>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
>>>>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high
>>>>>> end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
>>>>>> death's-gip
>>>>
>>>>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
>>>>> which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.
>>>>
>>>> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
>>>> distortion which other recordings lack.
>>>
>>> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance,
>>> sounds best to them.
>>
>> Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to
>> classical, jazz and other so-called serious music.

> Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're
> speaking of audio quality.

In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs about audio. But
thanks for bringing religion up.

>> Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change
>> what sounds good to people.

> LOL Who said that?

That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn.

> You are the most illogical person I've ever read.

Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to some people, Jenn.


>> You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music
>> education, Jenn?
>
> LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to
> sing comes to mind.

As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to get you to think
logically about audio, Jenn.

>>>>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
>>
>>>> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
>>>> superior to CDs?
>>
>>> That's not what I've stated, and you know it.
>>
>> I know no such thing, Jenn.

> Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated,
> over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better
> than CDs. Understand?

The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you Jenn, as you seem
to be very excitable. If you were thinking calmly, you'd see that "your
position about LPs sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me the
best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is very logical, no matter
what you say.

>>> You should pay more attention.

>> It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is
>> about decoding the past.

> It's about understanding clear writing and not
> attributing false statements to another person.

No such thing ever happened, except in your mind, Jenn. You just
over-reacted.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>
> >>>>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
> >>>>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get high
> >>>>>> end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
> >>>>>> death's-gip
> >>>>
> >>>>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is that
> >>>>> which sounds most like live acoustic music to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
> >>>> distortion which other recordings lack.
> >>>
> >>> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance,
> >>> sounds best to them.
> >>
> >> Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to
> >> classical, jazz and other so-called serious music.
>
> > Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're
> > speaking of audio quality.
>
> In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs about audio. But
> thanks for bringing religion up.

Try to stay on task: we're speaking about the quality of audio.

>
> >> Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change
> >> what sounds good to people.
>
> > LOL Who said that?
>
> That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn.

I quite agree that it's stupid to try to change what sounds good to
people vis-a-vis audio. It's called "preference".

>
> > You are the most illogical person I've ever read.
>
> Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to some people, Jenn.

What I write is quite clear in its meaning, Arny. The YOU have problems
with it is YOUR problem.

>
>
> >> You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music
> >> education, Jenn?
> >
> > LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig to
> > sing comes to mind.
>
> As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to get you to think
> logically about audio, Jenn.

How would "thinking logically" about audio help? I listen to what
sounds best to me. It has nothing to do with logic.

>
> >>>>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
> >>
> >>>> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
> >>>> superior to CDs?
> >>
> >>> That's not what I've stated, and you know it.
> >>
> >> I know no such thing, Jenn.
>
> > Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated,
> > over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better
> > than CDs. Understand?
>
> The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you Jenn, as you seem
> to be very excitable. If you were thinking calmly, you'd see that "your
> position about LPs sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me the
> best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is very logical, no matter
> what you say.

Incorrect. Your asking if I've changed my position shows that clearly.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article om>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> > > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> > > > How do you do it?
> > >
> > > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> > >
> > > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
> > switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the
> > 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.
>
> Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
> factor than
> my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.
>
> In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the
> gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple
> weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.
>
> ScottW

It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>>>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>>>> outside research organization to help with the planning,
>>>> logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>>>
>>> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his
>>> personal lack of technical ability. Remember that Harry
>>> has claimed to have expertise in consumer testing.
>
>> You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a
>> single person could make new discoveries. Today's
>> science is a cross-discipline of many professional fields.
>
> Non sequitor.
>
Perhaps if you didn't spend the better part of 13 business
weeks worth of posting a year on USEnet you'd have
time for a really fulfilling life. Is this really IT (Christian)
for you, Arny?


>> In one research grant study my department hired a full
>> time PhD in statistics for two years just to write survey
>> questions and analyze responses.
>
> Meaningless unless you identify your university and department
> so that we can confirm it.
>
Oh, I see, because you regularly malign the truth you
assume everyone does the same.

Knock yourself out. Perhaps you've heard of one or
the another.
Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center, Dearborn, Michigan.
http://www.oakwood.org/?id=697&sid=1&SiteCode=01

Major Grant Provider: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle
Creek, Michigan
http://www.wkkf.org/Default.aspx?LanguageID=0

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article om>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > > > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material with
> > > > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
> > > > > How do you do it?
> > > >
> > > > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
> > > >
> > > > ScottW
> > >
> > > If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
> > > switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover the
> > > 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.
> >
> > Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
> > factor than
> > my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.
> >
> > In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the
> > gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple
> > weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?

Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home.
I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own
personal evaluations.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > > wrote in message
> > > ps.com...
> > >> Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods
> > >> and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers
> > >> something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter
> > >> of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
> >
> > This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert.
>
> Who's "Robert"?

You stole my question.

Now I'm mad at you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arns insanity causes him to flail around some more:

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote

> >> This time you're making it up as you go along again,
> >> Robert.
> >
> > Who's "Robert"?
>
> Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien.

Was it voices in your head, or perhaps an angel whispered in your ear?

Whatever. It is pointless to try to understand the 'mind' of an insane
person.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from
>>>> rational approachesto selecting audio gear.
>
>>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
>>> when possible,
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as to avoid
> practical and useful means.
>
>>> using unsighted conditions as are practical,
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high as to avoid
> practical and useful means.
>
>>> using source material with which I'm very familiar.
>
> Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set high as to avoid
> practical and useful means.
>
>> That's more than most people do, I dare say.
>
>>> How do you do it?
>
> I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen and unheard and
> obtaining good results from it.
>
> I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones this way, with very
> few unhappy surprises.


Well, my guess is you don't expect much from $150 mics and $100 mic preamps.
If the bar is set low enough, there won't be any surprises. Think about it.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > > > > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare
> > > > > > say.
> > > > > > How do you do it?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW
> > > >
> > > > If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
> > > > switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover
> > > > the
> > > > 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.
> > >
> > > Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
> > > factor than
> > > my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.
> > >
> > > In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the
> > > gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple
> > > weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?
>
> Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home.

Well, to some extent, "practical is practical". In other words,
regardless of what one is trying to accomplish, there are limits as to
what is practical, don't you agree? I'm doing what I feel is practical
in order to do as objective an evaluation as is possible in practical
terms.

> I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own
> personal evaluations.

I don't really feel a need per se. It's just interesting to me to see
if, for example, a big Krell sounds better to me than does a Sony. In
that kind of case, seeing the gear might affect a choice, I suppose.
Ordinarily, I would just listen.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arns' insanity exhibits itself in a new manifestation:

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>
> >>>> So how can you state that ABX has done a good job of
> >>>> convincing home consumers of anything?
> >>>
> >>> There's the slight fact that most home consumers seem
> >>> to think that the CD
> >>> format is an overkill format, and that they happily
> >>> listen to formats that
> >>> are less accurate.
>
> >> The conclusion that I would draw is that some people
> >> prefer MP3 players and iPods as a far more convenient
> >> way to store and transport their music. I doubt that
> >> most home consumers ever give thought to "overkill."
>
> Sure they do, but probably not in exactly those terms.

I personally don't think the average home consumer gives sound quality
much thought. I know people who only have a boom-box and they are happy
with that. I know others who only have those Bose iPod plug-in things
and they are happy with that. I know others who have no home system at
all.

"Overkill" to those people would be any system above what they have.

> >> But let's look at your statement anyway: "they happily
> >> listen to formats that are less accurate." How about,
> >> "they seem to happily prefer formats that are less
> >> accurate (for whatever reasons)."
>
> What's the difference in the real world? Nothing. You're just playing with
> words.

No. You're wrong.

You attribute some kind of conclusion based on sound quality. The
amended statement shows a preference, which is all it is, and indicates
that there may be other reasons for that preference besides sound
quality, which is far more likely than the conclusion you drew.

> >>Now you seem to be OK
> >> with people preferring iPods and MP3 players, for
> >> example, but if somebody prefers something that you
> >> consider "less accurate" as a matter of choice for other
> >> reasons, you short-circuit.
>
> This time you're making it up as you go along again, Robert. I don't "short
> circuit". If anything its you who short circuit when you demonstrate your
> confusion over inputs and outputs.

You are insane. You're talking gibberish. You are hallucinating.

> As usual Robert you've misrepresented everything because you have no
> appreciation for the basics. I simply find it very interesting when people
> are so prejudices and biased that they repeatedly claim that an audibly
> inaccurate format does a more realistic job of reproducing sounds than one
> that can be audibly accurate. I suspect its a study in personal bias - one
> where a person has been educated to believe that in essence, black is white.

Are you speaking in tongues, Arns? Or is this just another
manifestation of your insanity?

> >> I wonder (aside from your insanity, that is) why somone
> >> who "happily listen[s] to formats that are less
> >> accurate" like LP or SET is a "bigot" deserving of
> >> bucketloads of snot, while someone else who "happily
> >> listen[s] to formats that are less accurate" like MP3 or
> >> an iPod is saying they think "that the CD format is an
> >> overkill format."
>
> It's the same problem - the SET and LP bigots are examples of bias gone
> amok - they seem to truely believe that something that is audibly flawed is
> the reference standard, and that there is something inherently wrong with a
> mediaum that can be sonically transparent. These people believe that black
> is white, and up is down.

Or they prefer whatever colorations their preferred medium add, which
gives them what they seek musically. Aren't many of the distortions
caused by those two media called "euphonic" or something? Isn't it
well-known that some people find these "euphonic" distortions pleasing?

I would suggest that it is you who is confused. You seem to think that
you can determine what is best for everybody, or you seem to think that
you can determine how others perceive things. What is it you accuse
others of so frequently?

Ah, yes. Are you omniscient, Arns?;-)

> In contrast, the so-called high resolution formats have failed in the
> marketplace because they have nothing that is real and tangible to sell.
> They are selling the emperor's new britches. The public is not impressed
> with a public display of the bare butts of people who prefer trousers made
> of whole cloth.

Again you draw an unwarranted and unsupported conclusion. This is quite
typical of you.

As I've pointed out above, IMO most home consumers are not critical
listeners. Convenience, portability, and cost are probably higher
priority factors to most. Add to that the fact that most people are not
interested in new formats that have not been accepted or standardized
yet.

> >> Now do you begin to see exactly how warped your
> >> 'thinking' is?
>
> >> Probably not. Self-awareness isn't your strong point, is
> >> it?;-)

Did I call that or what?;-)

> The irony is that the person making this joke is well-known for their lack
> of personal awareness. Who tried to sue Drexel University for a PhD? The
> regulars on RAP are having a lot of fun at your expense Robert because you
> have no clue about real world audio.

You are totally insane. My name is not Robert. You make up a name for
me and then create a bunch of tripe to go with it. I have never had ANY
dealings with Drexel. I have never (to my knowledge) posted on RAP.
Perhaps something has been crossposted to that group, though. Do you
drool, too? You're far sicker than even I thought.

Here, I'll try to speak your language in an attempt to cut through the
wall of your insanity:

Reynaldo (or are you Frankie today?), it is you who claim that by
taking a few classes at a second-rate community college you have some
kind of technical "engineering" expertise. This does not give you a
one-up technical advantage over anybody. It means you are an insane
person without any degree, much like some of the people who might work
in the fast-food industry.

You flog a test protocol that is absolutely useless to the average
consumer.

The fact that you also have great difficulty separating opinion from
fact in your statements shows that you think you actually know more
than the next person. From what I've seen, though, most people here
seem to realize that what they say is their opinion. Ironically, that
puts them one up over you.

Your mental disease has obviously kicked up a few notches, Arns. Please
seek professional help. I don't want you to hurt yourself or somebody
else.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to DebatingTradeBorg:

> > It appears that it isn't about paying attention, it is about decoding the past.

> It's about understanding clear writing and not attributing false
> statements to another person.

Take away the "debating trade" and an Audio 'Borg is just a machine.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ps.com...
>>>>> Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods
>>>>> and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers
>>>>> something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter
>>>>> of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
>>>
>>> This time you're making it up as you go along again,
>>> Robert.
>>
>> Who's "Robert"?
>
> Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien.


Hey, well, listen Arny....both "handles" begin with the letter "S". It's a
natural mistake. We can't expect you to be perfect now, can we? Not when
you have 500,000 more messages to type, and so little time to do it because
of the time demands of your 250 annual recording sessions. You are
forgiven.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> com
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> y.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
>>>>>>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get
>>>>>>>> high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
>>>>>>>> death's-gip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is
>>>>>>> that which sounds most like live acoustic music to
>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
>>>>>> distortion which other recordings lack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance,
>>>>> sounds best to them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to
>>>> classical, jazz and other so-called serious music.
>>
>>> Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're
>>> speaking of audio quality.
>>
>> In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs
>> about audio. But thanks for bringing religion up.

> Try to stay on task: we're speaking about the quality of
> audio.

Right, and we're talking about your religious beliefs with respect to sound
quality. You have this irrational belief that music doesn't sound realistic
without added noise and distortion.

>>>> Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change
>>>> what sounds good to people.
>>
>>> LOL Who said that?

>> That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn.

> I quite agree that it's stupid to try to change what
> sounds good to people vis-a-vis audio. It's called
> "preference".

Resolved, I'll never point out audible flaws in music reproduction to
anybody, because if they prefer crappy SQ, that's their preference.

>>> You are the most illogical person I've ever read.

>> Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to
>> some people, Jenn.

> What I write is quite clear in its meaning, Arny. The
> YOU have problems with it is YOUR problem.

Resolved, nobody should ever point out audible flaws in music reproduction
to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity because if they
prefer poor SQ, that's their preference.

>>>> You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music
>>>> education, Jenn?
>
>>> LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig
>>> to sing comes to mind.

>> As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to
>> get you to think logically about audio, Jenn.

> How would "thinking logically" about audio help?

I've discovered that I should ever point out audible flaws in music
reproduction to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity
because if they prefer poor SQ, that's their preference. Preference for
noise and distortion is sacrosanct.

> I listen to what sounds best to me. It has nothing to do with logic.

I know Jenn that I've done terrible things when I provided people with a
higher quality recording of a musical event to people who thought that what
they had previouisly heard sounded best to them. It was their preference and
I trashed their preference by demonstrating a better sound to them.
Obviously, I was trashing their former preferences.

>>>>>>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
>>>>
>>>>>> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
>>>>>> superior to CDs?
>>>>
>>>>> That's not what I've stated, and you know it.
>>>>
>>>> I know no such thing, Jenn.
>>
>>> Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated,
>>> over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better
>>> than CDs. Understand?

>> The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you
>> Jenn, as you seem to be very excitable. If you were
>> thinking calmly, you'd see that "your position about LPs
>> sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me
>> the best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is
>> very logical, no matter what you say.

> Incorrect. Your asking if I've changed my position shows
> that clearly.

Heaven forbid that you'd ever change your thinking, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jenn, it's that logic-tight box that keeps you from
>>>>> rational approachesto selecting audio gear.
>>
>>>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
>>>> when possible,
>>
>> Unsaid: the bar for "when possible" has been set high as
>> to avoid practical and useful means.
>>
>>>> using unsighted conditions as are practical,
>>
>> Unsaid: the bar for "when practical" has been set high
>> as to avoid practical and useful means.
>>
>>>> using source material with which I'm very familiar.
>>
>> Unsaid: the bar for "I'm very familair" has been set
>> high as to avoid practical and useful means.
>>
>>> That's more than most people do, I dare say.
>>
>>>> How do you do it?
>>
>> I don't have a lot of problem buying audio gear unseen
>> and unheard and obtaining good results from it.
>>
>> I've bought a ton of mics, headphones, and earphones
>> this way, with very few unhappy surprises.

> Well, my guess is you don't expect much from $150 mics
> and $100 mic preamps.

Actually I expect quite a bit, even from $75 mics. I guess you don't realize
that I have ca. $300 mics and mic preamps in my hardware collection. What
about my 02R96? - I paid about $7200 for a pidding 16 mic preamps, or about
$450 per.

But thanks for your lame attempt at playing the class card again, Harry. It
shows your worship of high prices and snobbery very well, thank you.

> If the bar is set low enough, there
> won't be any surprises. Think about it.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Jenn wrote:
>>
>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
>> when possible, using unsighted conditions as are
>> practical, using source material with which I'm very
>> familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare say.
>> How do you do it?
>
> How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?

Especially as related to say, turntables. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > in message
> > ups.com
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ps.com...
> >>>>> Now you seem to be OK with people preferring iPods
> >>>>> and MP3 players, for example, but if somebody prefers
> >>>>> something that you consider "less accurate" as a matter
> >>>>> of choice for other reasons, you short-circuit.
> >>>
> >>> This time you're making it up as you go along again,
> >>> Robert.
> >>
> >> Who's "Robert"?
> >
> > Good question. From the tone I somehow got the idea that ****R was Morien.
>
>
> Hey, well, listen Arny....both "handles" begin with the letter "S". It's a
> natural mistake. We can't expect you to be perfect now, can we? Not when
> you have 500,000 more messages to type, and so little time to do it because
> of the time demands of your 250 annual recording sessions. You are
> forgiven.

Wow. Arns is that busy?

We should be thankful for the time he spends here then, I suppose.:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>>> But it takes lots of time and money to organize and
>>>>> conduct, especially if one hires (as they should) an
>>>>> outside research organization to help with the
>>>>> planning, logistics, and statistical evaluation.
>>>>
>>>> Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for
>>>> his personal lack of technical ability. Remember that
>>>> Harry has claimed to have expertise in consumer
>>>> testing.
>>
>>> You're over reacting. Long gone are the days when a
>>> single person could make new discoveries. Today's
>>> science is a cross-discipline of many professional
>>> fields.
>>
>> Non sequitor.
>>
> Perhaps if you didn't spend the better part of 13 business
> weeks worth of posting a year on USEnet you'd have
> time for a really fulfilling life. Is this really IT
> (Christian) for you, Arny?
>
>
>>> In one research grant study my department hired a full
>>> time PhD in statistics for two years just to write
>>> survey questions and analyze responses.
>>
>> Meaningless unless you identify your university and
>> department so that we can confirm it.
>>
> Oh, I see, because you regularly malign the truth you
> assume everyone does the same.
>
> Knock yourself out. Perhaps you've heard of one or
> the another.
> Oakwood Hospital & Medical Center, Dearborn, Michigan.
> http://www.oakwood.org/?id=697&sid=1&SiteCode=01
>
> Major Grant Provider: W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle
> Creek, Michigan
> http://www.wkkf.org/Default.aspx?LanguageID=0

Answer so generalized as to be totally meaningless.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Jenn wrote:
>> In article
>> om>,
>> "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
>>>> when possible, using unsighted conditions as are
>>>> practical, using source material with which I'm very
>>>> familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare
>>>> say. How do you do it?
>>>
>>> How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your
>>> home?
>>>
>>> Why do you feel that is necessary for your own
>>> personal selections?
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>
>> If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll
>> have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while
>> I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so
>> that I can't see which one is playing.

Absence of level-matching and time-synching noted.

This is such a poor comparison that its not a test, just an exercise.

> Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a
> bigger factor than
> my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.

Realistic statement.

> In long listening....days... I generally find I get
> acclimated to the gear and my preference can shift. My
> recent cart change took a couple weeks to get used to but
> now I love the detail and dynamics.

Also realistic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?

We've gone the full route - level match, time synch and completely double
blind in people's homes.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article . com>,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when possible,
> > > > > > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source material
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare
> > > > > > > say.
> > > > > > > How do you do it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal selections?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ScottW
> > > > >
> > > > > If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a friend
> > > > > switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and cover
> > > > > the
> > > > > 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.
> > > >
> > > > Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
> > > > factor than
> > > > my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.
> > > >
> > > > In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to the
> > > > gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a couple
> > > > weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.
> > > >
> > > > ScottW
> > >
> > > It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home.
>
> Well, to some extent, "practical is practical". In other words,
> regardless of what one is trying to accomplish, there are limits as to
> what is practical, don't you agree?

Too nondescript for me. The only limits are the amount of effort
you're willing to put out. They are subjective.

> I'm doing what I feel is practical
> in order to do as objective an evaluation as is possible in practical
> terms.

within the scope of effort you're willing to make.
I suggest that scope of effort you're willing to make is dependent upon
your purpose. When I'm doing personal evaluations, I never blind
myself. It isn't necessary for my purpose..but if I was trying to prove
something..it would have purpose and become a requirement.

>
> > I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own
> > personal evaluations.
>
> I don't really feel a need per se. It's just interesting to me to see
> if, for example, a big Krell sounds better to me than does a Sony. In
> that kind of case, seeing the gear might affect a choice, I suppose.
> Ordinarily, I would just listen.

I don't have a "big Sony" but my big Krell didn't sound any different
to me
than my Yamaha on my Legacys ...but those are very similar amps at
their core.

I see Classic Records has delayed release of Aqualung until Jan 10.
They were kind of advertising this as a nice stocking stuffer so
I'm bummed :(

ScottW

ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?
>
> We've gone the full route - level match, time synch and completely double
> blind in people's homes.

You believe that this is practical?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home when
> > > > > > > > possible,
> > > > > > > > using unsighted conditions as are practical, using source
> > > > > > > > material
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > which I'm very familiar. That's more than most people do, I
> > > > > > > > dare
> > > > > > > > say.
> > > > > > > > How do you do it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your home?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you feel that is necessary for your own personal
> > > > > > > selections?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll have a
> > > > > > friend
> > > > > > switch the connections to the preamp while I'm not looking and
> > > > > > cover
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > 2 players with a cloth so that I can't see which one is playing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok.... a bit slow and, IMO, my lack of audio memory is a bigger
> > > > > factor than
> > > > > my sight in making subtle difference comparisons.
> > > > >
> > > > > In long listening....days... I generally find I get acclimated to
> > > > > the
> > > > > gear and my preference can shift. My recent cart change took a
> > > > > couple
> > > > > weeks to get used to but now I love the detail and dynamics.
> > > > >
> > > > > ScottW
> > > >
> > > > It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > Depends on what you're trying to accomplish in your home.
> >
> > Well, to some extent, "practical is practical". In other words,
> > regardless of what one is trying to accomplish, there are limits as to
> > what is practical, don't you agree?
>
> Too nondescript for me. The only limits are the amount of effort
> you're willing to put out. They are subjective.

Of course they are subjective, but surely some common ground can be
found here. To compare 2 CD players in my home, I think what I do is
practical. I think that doing more is FOR ME impractical.

>
> > I'm doing what I feel is practical
> > in order to do as objective an evaluation as is possible in practical
> > terms.
>
> within the scope of effort you're willing to make.
> I suggest that scope of effort you're willing to make is dependent upon
> your purpose.

Of course.

> When I'm doing personal evaluations, I never blind
> myself. It isn't necessary for my purpose..but if I was trying to prove
> something..it would have purpose and become a requirement.
>
> >
> > > I'm still curious why you feel the need to be blind in your own
> > > personal evaluations.
> >
> > I don't really feel a need per se. It's just interesting to me to see
> > if, for example, a big Krell sounds better to me than does a Sony. In
> > that kind of case, seeing the gear might affect a choice, I suppose.
> > Ordinarily, I would just listen.
>
> I don't have a "big Sony" but my big Krell didn't sound any different
> to me
> than my Yamaha on my Legacys ...but those are very similar amps at
> their core.
>
> I see Classic Records has delayed release of Aqualung until Jan 10.
> They were kind of advertising this as a nice stocking stuffer so
> I'm bummed :(

Sorry for you.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Jenn wrote:
> >> In article
> >> om>,
> >> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's see: I listen to proposed purchases in my home
> >>>> when possible, using unsighted conditions as are
> >>>> practical, using source material with which I'm very
> >>>> familiar. That's more than most people do, I dare
> >>>> say. How do you do it?
> >>>
> >>> How do you accomplish unsighted conditions in your
> >>> home?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you feel that is necessary for your own
> >>> personal selections?
> >>>
> >>> ScottW
> >>
> >> If I'm listening to, for example, two CD players, I'll
> >> have a friend switch the connections to the preamp while
> >> I'm not looking and cover the 2 players with a cloth so
> >> that I can't see which one is playing.
>
> Absence of level-matching and time-synching noted.

No kidding.

>
> This is such a poor comparison that its not a test, just an exercise.

You're right. I'll just use my ears in the future.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> com
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> com
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>> message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ig
> >>>>>> y.
> >>>>>> com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In fact PCABX could be a useful means for comparing
> >>>>>>>> high end turntables. Of course no way can we get
> >>>>>>>> high end turntable buyers to relax their hysterical
> >>>>>>>> death's-gip
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> lol What I have a "hysterical death's-gip" on is
> >>>>>>> that which sounds most like live acoustic music to
> >>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which in the past has inexplicably had audible
> >>>>>> distortion which other recordings lack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who cares? One should listen to what, on balance,
> >>>>> sounds best to them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is one reason why a lot of people don't listen to
> >>>> classical, jazz and other so-called serious music.
> >>
> >>> Of course. Same with R&R or church music. But we're
> >>> speaking of audio quality.
> >>
> >> In your case Jenn, we're talking about religious beliefs
> >> about audio. But thanks for bringing religion up.
>
> > Try to stay on task: we're speaking about the quality of
> > audio.
>
> Right, and we're talking about your religious beliefs with respect to sound
> quality.

No we're not, as I don't hold religious beliefs about sound. You seem
to, however.

> You have this irrational belief that music doesn't sound realistic
> without added noise and distortion.

Your statement isn't logical, but explaining that to you is pointless.

>
> >>>> Resolved then, no efforts should ever be made to change
> >>>> what sounds good to people.
> >>
> >>> LOL Who said that?
>
> >> That's a possible implication of what you said, Jenn.
>
> > I quite agree that it's stupid to try to change what
> > sounds good to people vis-a-vis audio. It's called
> > "preference".
>
> Resolved, I'll never point out audible flaws in music reproduction to
> anybody, because if they prefer crappy SQ, that's their preference.

Your response has nothing to do with my statement, but you probably
can't see that.

>
> >>> You are the most illogical person I've ever read.
>
> >> Trying to make sense out of what you say may do that to
> >> some people, Jenn.
>
> > What I write is quite clear in its meaning, Arny. If YOU have problems
> with it it is YOUR problem. (corrected)
>
> Resolved, nobody should ever point out audible flaws in music reproduction
> to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity because if they
> prefer poor SQ, that's their preference.

Your response has nothing to do with my statement, but you probably
can't see that.

>
> >>>> You now agree with the wholesale abandoment of music
> >>>> education, Jenn?
> >
> >>> LOL For you, yes. An expression about teaching a pig
> >>> to sing comes to mind.
>
> >> As much the same principle comes to mind when trying to
> >> get you to think logically about audio, Jenn.
>
> > How would "thinking logically" about audio help?
>
> I've discovered that I should ever point out audible flaws in music
> reproduction to anybody, or demonstrate superior tonal balance or clarity
> because if they prefer poor SQ, that's their preference. Preference for
> noise and distortion is sacrosanct.

Your response has nothing to do with my statement, but you probably
can't see that.

>
> > I listen to what sounds best to me. It has nothing to do with logic.
>
> I know Jenn that I've done terrible things when I provided people with a
> higher quality recording of a musical event to people who thought that what
> they had previouisly heard sounded best to them. It was their preference and
> I trashed their preference by demonstrating a better sound to them.
> Obviously, I was trashing their former preferences.
>
> >>>>>>> Sometimes that's analogue, sometimes it's digital.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> So, you're reversing your position about LPs sounding
> >>>>>> superior to CDs?
> >>>>
> >>>>> That's not what I've stated, and you know it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know no such thing, Jenn.
> >>
> >>> Are you getting enough sleep? What I've CLEARLY stated,
> >>> over and over, is that to me the best LPs sound better
> >>> than CDs. Understand?
>
> >> The question about sleep may be autobiographical for you
> >> Jenn, as you seem to be very excitable. If you were
> >> thinking calmly, you'd see that "your position about LPs
> >> sounding superior to CDs" is that you say "that to me
> >> the best LPs sound better than CDs.'. The connection is
> >> very logical, no matter what you say.
>
> > Incorrect. Your asking if I've changed my position shows
> > that clearly.
>
> Heaven forbid that you'd ever change your thinking, Jenn.

Another off-topic response. Follow the conversation above.

[Clyde Slick]

Powell a scris:
> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
..
> >
> > Thus Harry proposes the use of money to cover up for his personal lack of
> > technical ability. Remember that Harry has claimed to have expertise in
> > consumer testing.
> >

>
> You have one of the finest research universities in the
> world (U M) right in your back yard. Perhaps you might
> consider submitting a proposal for a PhD thesis.


or, "at least" to Oakland U

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> It's what is practical in the home, wouldn't you say?


>We've gone the full route - level match, time synch and completely double
>blind in people's homes.



Very practical, indeed.
Stumbling over furniture, amplifiers etc.


Q.: How does one recognize blind test attendants?
A.: By the bruises on their ankles.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -