wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones
that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come
up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better
than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself ,
seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO class..

As a counter to you being the court jester.

I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime.

Oh good then you'll be gone while you study?

It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments .

Then you've decided to join the ranks of people realize that ABX is an
accepted and useful tool in determining if subtle differences actrually
exist?

If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " then you perform experiments to show that.

No one has proposed such a hypothesis. Strawman noted.



For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works.

For the nth time, find somebody doing audio research that doesn't use ABX or
some other form of DBT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?

Why don't you go to the sources, those companies that use ABX, since there
are so many of them and since there is also the AES papers, you could search
there as well.
Then you could shut up already and stop lying.

But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ?

Nope, it was expected.

They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs.

Again, verification that when differences exist, ABX reveals them.

Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something? "

Not at all, we know you how full of crap you are.