New vs Vintage
On Apr 2, 1:38=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
How does ABX interfere in a way =A0that ABC/hr does not?
Good point Scott. But lets step back even further and see the big picture=
..
How does ABX interfere in a way that any test that demands the listener
express an opinon does not?
I don't think it does. Nor does ABC/hr
Neither methodology is particularly more or less like the
"normal evaluative process" if there is such a singular
thing.
Additional good points. Is an ABX test less intrusive than listening in a
stereo salon with a commissioned salesman hovering?
I think the intrusiveness of ABX simply is a function of the physical
imposition of such a test. If we are talking an ABX box and amps this
is trivial. If we are talking about other things it can be cumbersome.
Try doing an ABX test of power conditioners for example. Not a simple
test to design or execute.
I can't go there with you Harry. If done well ABX
should do the trick. Sure any given ABX test may miss an
audible difference that is present and not specifically
being listened for. But I have to side with the DBT
advocates that when used to test claims of audibility
those making the claims should already know what
specifically to listen for. ABX donr right does not make
audible differences go away. I think "done right" is the
issue not ABX per se.
What makes this all a giant joke is the fact that so many people take
sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched listening evaluations as the=
ir
definitive standard for evaluating audio gear. =A0If that isn't invalid, =
then
is anything invalid?
Personal evaluation only requires personal validation. The last set of
blind comparisons I did (not ABX since theyr were preference
comparisons and there was NO question of sameness) was between several
*performances* of Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. It was an arduous
task to say the least. You really can't time sync, nor do you want to.
the pieces have to be heard in sections and as a whole. Level matching
is impossible so we level "optimized" for each version. As different
and as recognizable as one would expect the different interpretations
to be the blind comparisons were really an eye, or ear opener. A lot
of the presumptions about the artists' technical and artistic talents
were exposed as questionable in these blind comparisons. But it was a
lot of work. Luckily it was also a lot of fun. It was quite a learning
experience in regards to the concerto itself and a learning experience
in my personal tastes. One of the lessons was that despite the obvious
and, in many cases, recognizable differences between these
performances the bias controls made a significant impact on the
results and preferences formed.
|