wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW