"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

(snip)

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the
brain
can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an
AB
test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other
kinds
of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

(snip)

This means that
ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully
developed
in the individual!

An ABX test isn't about discriminating between symbols. The subject
being tested doesn't even have to know the symbols.

The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes
to
participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the
full
mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the
problem.
It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.

See my previous comment.

There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not
subject
to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
sensitivity experienced by sighted observers,

The point of blind, objective testing in audio is to eliminate the
expectations, assumptions, and "sensitivity" experienced by sighted
observers, so that the person doing the listen can pay attention only
to the sound,

while responding to the valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.

The idea with blind, objective testing is to eliminate "imagined
differences and imagined discrimination" so that the listener pays
attention only to what that person hears.


Too bad that it does nothing to eliminate "imagined sameness".

Very correct, succinctly said.