[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:40:13 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

Conventional ABX'ng has never been shown to be valid in
evaluating MUSIC differences that other approaches (the
aforementioned Oohashi test) and even the ABC/hr test
have proven better at.

I find it ironic that Harry continues to idolize the Oohashi tests when in
fact they are among the listening tests I know of that are most different
from "Just listening to music" of all that I know of. ABX is not about
hooking wires up to people's heads or putting them into large scale
diagnositic machines that make loud clanking sounds when they run.

Yet ABX is the test that Arny
developed a computerized version of, and has relied on.

Yes I developed ABX, but no I don't rely on it exclusively.

If the construct of the test itself intereferes with the
normal evaluative process, you can almost be guaranteed
that it will not produce valid results.

This senstence is ludicrous coming from a proponent of highly mechanistic
tests such as those used by Oohashi.

One of the
principles of testing in any field of human endeavor is
to try to emulate as much as possible the conventional
context of the variable under test.

That's what ABX does. Most of the ABX tests that we did in the early days
were done using proponents of the audible difference, using the proponent's
home systems.

Well put.

No, straw man.

These are some of the things that bother me
about the body of conclusions that many of these tests
produce.

We're aware of that. The real problem is that ABX tests don't support your
cherished beliefs about audio, such as the audible performance of certain
power amps for which you have *never* provided any technical support for.
Ditto for your cherished beliefs about high sample rates and magic DACs.

As I have indicated before, I have participated
in many DBT tests where we have worked hard to set up
correctly, with level matching to less than a quarter of
a dB both electrical and acoustical, set switch times,
long samples,

Well there you go. It is well known that long samples are an enemy of
sensitive results.

the switch operator in another room, all
indications of a switch taking place masked (input
lights, etc.), the AB box (where used) in an
insulation-filled box so we can't hear the relays, etc.
and we have returned statistically positive results for
amps and DACs. . I have also been involved in DBTs where
null results have been returned.

But you didn't say that the samples were time-synched within a few
milliseconds. I can ace any ABX test where the music is not accurately time
synched, even if the equipment being compared is in fact the very same
equipment.

In those tests where a positive result occurred, I found
the differences to be so trivial that only a very anal
retentive audiophile could possibly not be happy with any
of the units under test! While they all sounded a little
different in some respect, they all sounded good. The
only time we got a gross difference was when, for fun, we
pulled out our host's old Dynaco ST-120 and ran it
against a new, and very expensive Audio Research Hybrid
HD220 amp. The results made us all laugh. The ST-120
sounded dreadful while the AR was very neutral sounding.

Obviously the ST-120 was broken, and you have no technical tests to confirm
that it wasn't. If you ever did proper bench tests you'd know that
audiophile myth about this amplifier is vastly overstated and subject to
immense hyperbole.