" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at something. It
says nothing about the ethics of a person. But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't
like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the
real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't

like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at
something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do it
often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited
usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of
biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable test.
I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only needed to buy
AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it was white.) Also
available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal choice since Mr.
Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his speakers. The result
of the test was that no difference could be heard between mono and biwiring
until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was a slight difference--in
favor of mono wiring.

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain
can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds
of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain. According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means that
ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed
in the individual!

The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to
participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full
mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem. It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.

There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not subject
to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.

wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't
like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do
it often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited
usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of
biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable
test. I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only
needed to buy AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it
was white.) Also available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal
choice since Mr. Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his
speakers. The result of the test was that no difference could be heard
between mono and biwiring until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was
a slight difference--in favor of mono wiring.


My recollection is that he even more strongly supports bi-amping, and doing
that
with two identical stereo amps, each amp handling the total left or right
side, one side of each
amp upper freq and one side of each amp lower freq for that channel.

BTW, I have Vandersteen 4's, I usually bi-amp them in a more
normal fashion, one stereo amp left and right tweeters left and right
other amp woofers left and right, ppostie Vandersteens recommendation.
When I use single stereo amps, like I am right now, I don't bi-wire them,
for
other practical reasons.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions
So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of to
persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying
decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that
have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make
sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind
comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and
because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted
conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable
to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than
the equipment.

If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there
is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or
other.

Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's
no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any
of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something
other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference,
is somewhat more than disingenuous.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't
like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions
So don't do them. It's never been the aim of anybody here that I know of
to persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their
buying decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences
that have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't
make sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in
a blind comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind
comparisons, and because there is ample data on why people hear things
under sighted conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons,
it's reasonable to suspect that the differences being heard come from
somewhere other than the equipment.


Bull****. This is an opinion group. If I want to talk about
differences I hear, I will do it without reference to DBT, and I or
anyone else is certainly justified in doing so. We do not have to
have done any DBT's to talk about any of our preferences
or any differences in regard to what we hear.

What you are doing here, Mr. NETAUDIO NAZI, is ordereing us to
prequalify any discussion about our preferences with haviing undergone
DBT's, which is just outright ridiculous.

If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy,
there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort
ABX or other.



Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying
there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks
detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and
paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for
detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous.


It is bad science, because it only removes the bias towards
one side of the equation.