" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at something. It
says nothing about the ethics of a person. But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.