wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

Then it's bad science that has beenadopted in one form or another by
virtually everyone working on audio research..

" wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip

Then it's bad science that has beenadopted in one form or another by
virtually everyone working on audio research..

What the hell is "beenadopted", Mikey? Another vocalization of your shrunken
brain?
Thank you so much for including, in your list of citations,

"In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi on
their ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated
place-of-articulation continuum."

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?



He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase he
knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just claims
it to irritate people because they find him such a fool.

YMMV

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences,
and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better
or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be
silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?



He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase
he
knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just
claims
it to irritate people because they find him such a fool.

YMMV

No, Mikey, you don't get it. Those of us who hear acutely, see the colors
you cannot see. When it rains, we put on raincoats. We don't check the U.S.
Weather Bureau to get the official opinion. You **** on our backs and call
it rain. We can tell the difference.

But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow snow.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences,
and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.

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?

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better
or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be
silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?



He doesn't actually have the balls to put his theory on the line, becuase
he
knows it's bull ****. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just
claims
it to irritate people because they find him such a fool.

YMMV

No, Mikey, you don't get it. Those of us who hear acutely, see the colors
you cannot see. When it rains, we put on raincoats. We don't check the
U.S.
Weather Bureau to get the official opinion. You **** on our backs and call
it rain. We can tell the difference.

We **** on you because you are a **** ant and you think you know more than
you do.
Your hearing acuity is mostly a figment of your imagination. We could test
it though, but you don't want your fantasy world to cumble around you, so
you blame the messenger, ABX.

But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow
snow.

Not been a problem for me, sorry you had to find out the hard way.

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that.

Yep.

But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

Having owned a comparator myself, I do have some perspective on that
subject. Anyway, I didn't say the golden-ears crowd could never hear
differences, just that it's not always possible, despite what many in
that crowd seem to believe.

Audio for many of those folks is just a hobby, they can believe
whatever they like, and I'm fine with that.

(snip)

Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.

I'd certainly be open to representing audio gear with nudes, and not
necessarily the Picasso nudes you suggested. The right nudes might make
everything better, not just the sound of audio gear. Heck, given the
right nudes, I'd be willing to forget the audio gear entirely! ;-)

However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

I just don't see the point of replacing the intentionally bland and
abstract A, B, C, X, etc. labels with labels (such as the Picasso nudes
you mentioned, although I realize that was probably a fanciful example)
with labels that are meaningful in other contexts. Having more
meaningful labels would just confuse things and make it easier for
people to assign irrelevant meanings to the things being labeled.