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

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

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.

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.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them?

ScottW

As I forecast this undead whom I showed up to be a lying ignoramus did
not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it
will be all forgotten and now reemerges.
You quote my misrepresentations and I'll quote yours. Quote means QUOTE
not your travesty. I'll quote you OK.- it will be a pleasure
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com

Don't tell me who is a supporter of what.

Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts?

Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component
comparison by S. Olive using ABX.

This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a
peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of
specific pieces of audio gear.

What a bogus criteria!

I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't
involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model
information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the
idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about
consumer product testing.

Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of
speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests.
Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing.

And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all
bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing
bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures
that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX.

For that matter give a reference to ANY component
comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio
professional Jornal*.

Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals
are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision.

This request has been repeated again and again for the
last five years. So far no takers. Be the first.

Asked and answered, many times.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Don't tell me who is a supporter of what.

Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts?

Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component
comparison by S. Olive using ABX.

This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a
peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of
specific pieces of audio gear.

What a bogus criteria!

I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't
involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model
information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the
idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about
consumer product testing.

Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of
speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests.
Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing.

And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all
bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing
bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures
that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX.

For that matter give a reference to ANY component
comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio
professional Jornal*.

Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals
are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision.

This request has been repeated again and again for the
last five years. So far no takers. Be the first.

Asked and answered, many times.

Trying to match your selfimportant, pompous style Krueger I "explained
to you many times" that RAO is not an audio research populariser but a
voice of lay audio consumers.
I also "explained to you many times" Krueger that an engineer is
welcome to give such measurements as he's capable of doing at this
point in time and then;
if he wants to be listened to as a critic he takes off his hat and
talks like another listener. His engineering school credentials make
his opinions no more valid than those of a carpenter about the
aesthetic effect of the Louis the XVith chair on the buyer. Till you
get this into your head you'll continue to be mocked for a
self-promoting, self-inflated product of an engineering school with
pretences above his station.
Just the introduction. Details discussed in the next posting.
Ludovic Mirabel

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Don't tell me who is a supporter of what.

Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts?

Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component
comparison by S. Olive using ABX.

This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a
peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of
specific pieces of audio gear.

What a bogus criteria!

I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't
involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model
information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the
idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about
consumer product testing.
We,re talking about what S.E. Olive did Krueger; not about your ideas
what he should or should not have done:
S.E. Olive: "Differencews in performance and PREFERENCE of Trained
versus Untrained Listeners in LOUDSPEAKER Tests: A case study"; JAES.,
vol.51, #9, Sept. 2003"
P. 806; "The four loudspeakers used in both tests are shown in table 1"
They were coded but the data were so transparent that I guessed the
identity
of the electrostatic one correctly (my guess confirmed by S.Olive)
Krueger says in his USUAL weasely way : "...they are not USUALLY about
consumer product testing".
How many times Krueger do I have to "explain" to you that they are
USUALLY not- except when they ARE- about consumer product testing.
ABX WAS NOT USED.

Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of
speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests.
Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing.

Now we get another weasel word; "generally" -"pass ABX tests".
What exactly are you trying to say Krueger? What does "pass" mean in
this context? Are you trying (very ineptly) to say that ABX is only
good for testing components that do not "pass" ie "they all sound the
same"?
Well, we already know that.

And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all
bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing
bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures
that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX.
Explain which areas of interest to RAO participants are "suitable for
ABX.". Are there any at all? We're not psychometric researchers down
here in the real world.
Isn't testing of loudspeakers what you promote in your PCABX? If not
say so clearly and unequivocally. We're listening..

For that matter give a reference to ANY component
comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio
professional Jornal*.

Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals
are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision.
Olive tested audio components under coded names. He did not use ABX.
List the other coded audio component comparisons using ABX that
appeared in JAES.
Or say that ABX is only suitable for "science" and close off your
PCABX

This request has been repeated again and again for the
last five years. So far no takers. Be the first.

Asked and answered, many times.
You're a laugh, you are Krueger
Ludovic Mirabel
Personal note: I sound harsh even to myself. Once anyone calls me a
liar the gloves are off. This is an explanation and a warning.

wrote:
wrote in message

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It occurred to me that you need some signposts to reading
comprehension.
You don't have to tell me how good DBTs are or where to look for
lessons about them
DBTs are a wonderful medical research tool. I was employed by the Med.
Research Ccil. of U.K. when DBTs
were first designed and applied and I participated in the early trials
I dare say before they were taken up by the Floyd Toole's Research Unit
at Ottawa University in Canada.
I'm tired of repeating the differences between the objective, results
and outcome-based, placebo randomised, statistically sound med.
research DBTs and their *******isation in purely subjective,
statistically risible, non-randomised application to :
AUDIO COMPONENT COMPARISON
AUDIO COMPONENT COMPARISON
AUDIO COMPONENT COMPARISON
Should I repeat it once more or did you grasp it? Lab psychometrics
research is another kettle of fish altogether from ABXing audio
components.. That is not what an audio client like myself is concerned
about.
Got it?
Ludovic Mirabel