ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to
update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked
best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding
his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of preferences
between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions
were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in
real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their
opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking
if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is
possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other
walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness. So is his intolerance to accept that inherent ability. An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .