AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.

By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Now NYOB:
Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.

Coming from a bonfide shameless liar and distorted like you, I'm all
a-flutter. :-)

Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.

I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
.
Youmean you haven't read any of them?

2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?

.3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
predicting his choices)
" Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
McKelvy I'm not in esoteric research

n "resonances" or anything else.
I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
is ABX any use in that task.
It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
Olive's research method for this task. Quote?