"Signal" wrote in message
...
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions.

And who exactly said that isn't possible? The most revealing way is
sometimes to use things other than music, yes pink noise and short segments
of music tracks. The validation is everywhere and almost everybody doing
any kind of audio research. Obviously the people doing the research have
validated ABX as useful as well as ABC/HR.

Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

See above.

Maybe even the article(s) that convinced you.

The forst article I ever read about ABX was in Electronics Now IIRC. It
detailed how 2 sets of tests were set up. One where there was extended
listening and no time lmit.

The second was typical quick switch.

One of the ways used to see if there was a higher senistivity for one method
over the other, was to inject THD in significant amounts into of the
signals. Oddly enough the long term listeners did very poorly at there
identifications. The quick switch people nailed it.

You
say you are NOT reluctant to provide info? Maybe it's about time you
stopped running round in circles like a headless chicken / deranged
idiot and post something relevant.

Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not always
the case.