"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.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
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.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question
anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

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.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

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

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just
doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely,
ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

That must be why it is so mainstream.

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects..._aes_paper.pdf

http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm


http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...b/chapter6.htm

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone
doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some
form
of DBT.

Mikey, they have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days
concerns
codec quality and distinguishability. Since a codec is an algorithm,
rather
than a physical device, there is no way to compare codecs other than with
ABX.

In the case of amplifiers, however, we have actual physical devices. The
deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,

Acoustat is substandard? That's how you feel about yours?

because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
faith.

I have no faith at all. My hearing is fine, my brain, contrary to your
propaganda, also works fine, which is why I know that nobody doing serious
research on any aspect of audio, is using sighted listening evaluations.
This is because they all know that ABX is a very reliable way to get results
for difference.

The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not.

Prove it.

When
this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
used for amplifier comparison.


Of course SP has no agenda and is completely unbiased in their view of ABX.
NOT.

In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to
synchronous
detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
synchronous detection?

That's a problem for any sort of A/B comparison.

You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
ability to detect differences.

You have the burden of proof in this question. Can yo prove that ABX does
handicap a human's abiltiy to detect differences?

The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But
I
suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.


Still no answer to the question of who isn't using ABX. That makes you a de
facto loser, again.

So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very
well,
and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these
disabilities.
You truely are "special".

And still smart enough to know you are full of ****, which makes me smarter
than you.