About Us

wrote:
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.

(snip)

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.

(snip)

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!

An ABX test isn't about discriminating between symbols. The subject
being tested doesn't even have to know the symbols.

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.

See my previous comment.

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,

The point of blind, objective testing in audio is to eliminate the
expectations, assumptions, and "sensitivity" experienced by sighted
observers, so that the person doing the listen can pay attention only
to the sound,

while responding to the valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.

The idea with blind, objective testing is to eliminate "imagined
differences and imagined discrimination" so that the listener pays
attention only to what that person hears.

A good summary of the hypothetical advantages of ABX .
Two questions: 1) Do you really believe that by covering theeyes uou
"eliminate imagined differences and imasgined discrimination'?
All of them including the effects of exposure to different kinds of
differently conveyed, sex, age, education, high- or lowbrowism etc.
etc.?
2) Medical research is based on "The proof of the pudding is in the
eating" In forty years of its existence not one positive ("Yes, most of
us in this group heard the difference!) ABX component comparison by a
decent-sized panel passed an editorial pencil, however indulgent,
anywhere. Could there be something wrong with the protocol. Or is the
protocol right but all the components sound the same?
Ludovic Mirabel

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Summing or not summing	Sumsum	Pro Audio	29	October 21st 05 08:11 AM
Summing Box	[email protected]	Pro Audio	1	September 20th 05 03:08 AM
RMS216 Folcrom Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box RMS216 Folcrom 16 Channel Passive Summing Box	Brandon	Pro Audio	5	June 27th 04 05:11 PM
for the analog summing crowd - what are you using to AD your stereo mix?	hollywood_steve	Pro Audio	12	April 9th 04 07:44 PM
audiophile summing mixers...who's getting in the game?	xy	Pro Audio	16	September 21st 03 02:03 AM

Menu

About Us