Don't tell me who is a supporter of what.
Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S.
Olive using ABX.
For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by
ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*.
This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years.
So far no takers. Be the first.
You have forty years of ABX to look through.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
I'm starting a new thread because Google "disappeared" the old one
without an answer from normally voluble A.Krueger. (It was "SACD,
DVD-A...." on April 2nd
....Krueger said:
"OK Mirabel I'll help you out. A reliable perceptible difference is a
different that is reliably perceptible as opposed to difference that is
not
reliably perceptible".
Why, his old reliable ABX component smoke-screen of course.
He answered:
"Well Mirabel you seem to have ABX on your mind. I was thinking of any
of the zillions of ways that can be used to introduce the concept of
reliability
into listening tests. Blind testing is just one of many ways to improve
the
relaibilty of listening tests. ABX is just one of many means for blind
testing. I hope you find this information helpful in the future."

You won't get out of it shouting "zillions" Krueger. .
The criteria for a reliable DBT were laid down clearly and concisely by
its creators Bradford Hill and Richard Doll in the Med. Research Ccil.
of U.K. I quoted those to you 3 days ago. Let me refresh your memory.
The listeners' sample is representative of gender, age, social status,
education and experience. They have a randomised placebo control
group.(randomised means sequential in each pair-one of each) They have
a rigid test protocol and employ a statistician or know enough
statistics to lay down a sound statistical basis.
I know that no scientific professional journal would accept any
"research" not so grounded.
Even if you tell them about your zillions.

What experimental research can you quote Krueger to justify your
claim that "ABX is one of the many means for blind testing"? We're
talking about differentiating audio components. At least I am. Are you?
Which professional audio journal published such research? When? Blogs
on the web are not it Krueger.
Till you have such experiments published your ABX is your and your
clownish pseudoscientist's Sulivan toy -for use by others if so
inclined.
As for ABX being "just one of many means for blind testing"; yes quite;
astrology is just one of many means of pursuing astronomy.


I said:
"He loves using terms from formal logic. How's this: "Begging the
question"
Krueger answers the Krueger's way:
"How's this: "straw man"?"
Webster says: "To beg the question- To use an argument that assumes as
proved the very thing one is trying to prove."
See the postscript and start trying . Krueger . So far you kept silent
about it.
Ludovic Mirabel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is the postscript

We can not allow Krueger to weasel his way out of nitty-gritty as this
exchange gets buried in Google's archives.
I said:
" I also know that the voice of scientific audio
JAES in the last four decades of the noisy existence of audio DBT/ABX
failed to print ONE, SINGLE ABX/DBT audio component research article.

Typical of Mirabel's deceptions. The JAES as rule does not print any
audio
component research articles at all.

Let's see where the "typical deception" dwells: A few references out of
many
S. Bech, Selection and Training of Subjects for Listening Tests on
Sound Reproducing Equipment", JAES, vol. 40, 1992, pp590-610
S,E. Olive et al.,"The Variability of Loudspeaker Sound Quality among
Four Domestic-Sized Rooms,JAES Abstracts,vol.43,1995, 1088-1089
A. Gabrielson, "Loudspeaker Frequency Response and Perceived Sound
Quality", J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 90, 1991, pp.707-1991
F.E.Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and their relationship to Listener
Preferences', JAES, vol.34, 1986, pp.237-285
M.R.Jason, "A Real-World Implementation of Current Theory in
Loudspeaker Subjective Evaluation", JAES Abstracts, vol. 39, 1991, pp.
385
S.E.Olive, "Differences...... Loudspeker Tests: A Case Study" JAES,
vol.51, 2003. pp 806-825, which compared four COMMERCIAL
loudspeakers.
Many more but my typing two fingers feel faint.

Enough anyway for you to find if your ABX was used in any of them.
Or do you mean that it is only useful for testing Named Commercial
Components? Clarify so that we know who is deceiving whom.
As a rule when technical results pertaining to a specific make and model
of
equipment are published in the JAES, the make and model information is
supressed in the article and replaced with a letter or a number.

Correct But was ABX USED OR NOT?

Most JAES research articles are not about commercial products but are
about
audio procut principles of operation or technical features. Usually,
equipment tests relate to laboratory prototypes.

"Most" Mr. Krueger is a weasel word. "Most" related to prototypes
except those that did not. Like S. Olive quoted above and a hundred
others. Talk about "deception".
Or are we about to learn that "deception" Krueger style got
transformed- to quote Churchill- into a mere "terminological
inexactitude"?
Ludovic Mirabel


I see you mentioning Sean Olive above, you are aware, I hope, of the fact
that Mr. Olive is a firm supporter of ABX as a testing protocol for audio
difference, as is his fellow researcher Floyd Toole.

I'm sure that if you asked him, Mr. Olive would send you some information on
how to set up blind listening tests of both ABX and ABC/HR, in .pdf format.
You will find a number of well known names attached to these papers, who it
would seem also endorse and utilize such testing protocols.