"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
controversy as to whether they sound different.

But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
the same,when ABX tested.

This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
its what's known as a truism.

Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.

All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
same.

A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.

All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
mission, and its fair to say that they are not
well-designed.

You mean sounds the same to you or to me?

However, just sounding the same is not the
only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
and durability criteria.

Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.

Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
different.

Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
different.

Care to list which is which. :-)

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm

So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..

Just observing what should be obvious.

In other words the only components worthy of a listening
test are those that "we know" will sound the same.

Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.

And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.

I think a succinct description of the ABXer's position is:
All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound the
same, sound the same when tested by ABX.
All devices which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
different, sound different when tested by ABX.
Thus, the ABX box is a mechanical device that contains prejudice and
folk
belief!

No disagreement.Just a clarification; You say: " All devices
which are known, by prejudice or folk belief, to sound
different, sound different when tested by ABX."
There's no experimental evidence they would sound different
under ABXing.. Sean Olive's double=blind loudspeaker test demonstrated
that some 80% of his panelists could not distinguish one loudspeaker
from the other when asked to differentiate but the same people had no
difficulty choosing the better ones when asked to express preference.
And this was just double-blind. One can only imagine what would happen
were it a full, undiluted ABX. The real reason why Arnie shouts: "No
need. The difference is obvious" is his fear that under ABX it even the
"obvious" would vanish into thin air.
Ludovic Mirabel

It appears the ABX mojo is a bargain basement spell.

That must account for why Harman and B&O make such crappy equipment, since
they both use ABX, among other blind protocols.