ScottW wrote:
wrote:
You might find this interesting.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248
and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:
I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.
ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.L. Clark is or was Arnie's collaborator on the ABX research. I think
he's
serious and has serious things to say. It is interesting that he
appears to be
going beyond ABX. But the summary does not extend a promise of a
change revolutionary enough to fork out twenty bucks. I'll wait till I
can get it
next time I visit Vancouver Public Library.
I'll take this opportunity to raise one more point. You said that ABX
has not been
proved or disproved. That is not the way things work in research.
Sure they do...someone has a problem requiring solution
in this case how do you tell for sure audio sounds different to me or
anyone else?
Then people propose solutions based on theories... and it often
takes time for these proposals to gain acceptance and become
proven.
Imagine a guy saying to someone with Aids:" I discovered a cure for
Aids.
Please start my pills".
Wouldn't the sick man say:
"Did you present your evidence to my
doctors."?
What do you suppose the first Aids victim asked of his doctors?
Seriously...in a time when Aids was a death sentence and doctors had
no cure, many would try anything.
But I think equating comparing audio equipment to life threatening
illnesses is a bit absurd.
"No, I asked them to disprove my cure and they could not"
ABX is a test for showing differences between components. So far, in
four decades, it did not
amass enough convincing evidence to get it published in
a professional journal for acceptance
Burstein accepted it enough to publish 2 papers in AES journals on
the statistics of ABX testing.
Just search the AES site for ABX.
This test used ABX and was presented to AES in Germany.
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf
BTW...heres a positive ABX test on room acoustics.
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewco...text=recording
and heres a positive ABX on subwoofer locations vs frequency.
This is interesting as it compares ABX and AB.
Data doesn't declare one over the other for sensitivity.
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~kim/aes2004sanfrancisco.pdf
Heres an IEEE paper on voice conversion methods using
ABX.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1221719
And an AES paper on switching 1 bit digital streams
that had an unexpected positive on a 50 kHz BW requantization.
http://www.extra.research.philips.co...01/dr_edit.pdf
or rejection by other
experimenters.
I find far more evidence of acceptance in puplished material
than I can for rejection as well as a couple of the
elusive positives in ABX you call for.
In medical research such a proposal would have been dead and buried
at birth. It is worse than putting a cart before the horse.
You can't "disprove" something that does not yet exist
Everything originates and goes through a period of development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I hope we're setting an example to fellows RAOers. I for one
prefer to
disagree, if I have to, while respecting my opponent..
I've spent some time compliling quite a bit of information for you
to contemplate...most directly available on the net.
I hope you give it fair consideration.
ScottW
ScottW (Is your first name Scott?), I sincerely appreciate
yours taking trouble.
I did not read the papers- just the titles and your summary so I may be
missing something
But as far as I can see MY opinion on their significance would not be
of slightest importance to anyone. And THEY contribute nothing to the
question of validity
of ABX as a TOOL FOR DETECTING Audible DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AUDIO
COMPONENTS.
My opinion about them would be valueless because as far as I can see
these
are research
papers in psychometrics. I said repeatedly that I know nothing about
psychometrics
( and have no intention of learning more). I also said ,explicitly,
that as far as I know
ABX is probably a good psychometric tool.
Their contribution is neither here nor there regarding the subject of
the so-called
Great Debate.: Comparing Components for listener-audible differences..
One more point:
You say: " Everything originates and goes through a period of
development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.
Again I have to call on what I'm acquainted with: Medical therapy
research.
Yes: ideas, thoughts, interesting possibilities don't see the light of
day in an
upscale medical journal UNTIL they present experimental evidince to go
with it.
Just imagine: The world of healing is and always has been full of
brilliant
and not so brilliant ideas, thoughts , proposals: holistic, herbal,
natural,
acupuncture, aroma therapy, Chinese traditional, Hindu, all kinds of
pet diets
..... You can keep filling in.till the cows come home.
There would be no time for anything else if one took it all seriously.
And
would YOU like to be an object for trying it all out?
Mo modern evidential medical treatmentwas born when "interesting
theories" like "miasmas', "punishment for sins" etc. were abandoned
So in my own practice (for what that is worth) I
1) I never used the "new" till there was convincing evidence that it
beat the
old
2) never used anything that remained controversial five years after it
was
first proposed. Compare ABX for component comparison
3) (and here you have a point)- if the alternative was certain death
I'd use
anything at all.
Ludovic Mirabel
Hi Krueger! Nice to hear from you something other than :"Been there
done that" and "Asked and answered". You're really trying.