Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position. Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge to
the ABXers. An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly? I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis. I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.
__________________________________________________ ______

Thank you in turn for a compliment. Flowers are always welcome
to a scribbler- never enough.
As to why ABX does not work in audio component comparisons? I
hate speculations. (Medicine had nothing but before it originated a
double blind evidence-based methodology)
But the lure is irresistible- so here goes.
If you look at the results of Sean Olive's double- blind
widely representative loudspeaker panel you see that majority performed
very badly when asked to differentiate between speakers. But the same
majority went unhesitatingly for the speakers with smoothest response.
Perhaps cerebral cortex performs badly when asked to
concentrate on differences between the complex musical signals
succeeding each other but has much less of a problem when asked simply
: which one do you like better?
This difficulty would be compounded with an ABX protocol in
place of simple DBT. There you have to memorise A, then B, and then
decide if X is more like A or B. It may work very well in audio
research on simple tasks (phase differences, codecs and such) but
complex musical signal may be beyond its scope.
That may have been at least part of the reason why sainted
Olive felt ABX was "unsuitable" for comparing differences between
speakers when reproducing music. Of course DBT is the only way to
decrease the sighted placebo response. But identifying DBT with DBT/ABX
in this context is completely unjustified.
I note that training improves the DBT performance. But not for
everyone. Some of his trained listeners remained hopeless and some were
better than the others. Just like in real life. And one more
speculation- perhaps training is about becoming proficient in using the
DBT methodology at least as much as about improved recognition of
differences.
Ludovic Mirabel
This copy will be mailed to Sean Olive with some hope that he will
allow the publication of his answer in this vipers' nest.