ludovic mirabel wrote





Here goes one-out of many- example of the rec.audio.low-end moderating
objectivity, Fidel Castro style.

An invocation extolling unvalidated, unconfirmed by basic research
"testing"goes in as a clinching argument .

Ah, but try and question it!: "We do not allow discussion of ABX"

We only allow it in to end discussions, right?

Ludovic Mirabel

Message 24 in thread

From: Richard )
Subject: Stereophile again!

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Date: 2005-01-25 17:00:04 PST


... "The simple answer to all this is to incorporate ABX testing ESPECIALLY
on controversial tweaks. Of course if printing facts were what it is about
then it would be happening already."

Richard




I had another look again today at that particular group we have in question.
There are perhaps at least a total of no less than 20 posting posted for
Monday. Perhaps more were submitted at the beginning prior to that day
but it seem only those posted met the requirement as specified in their
guidelines.

Among these posting that were posted today was a man asking for
suggestion about wires for his projection machine. In other post, another
man is wondering whether he should return back into using his old amp
as it seem to keep the rest of his system quiet again. Still in another,
a new poster is seeking advice for appropriate receiver to be paired
with his surround system. There's a small conversation I noted concerning
the forthcoming HE2005 Show.

I did not see any discussion mentioning ABX or DBT. I did not see any
suspicious discussion pertaining to these methodologies as of this
writing.