ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW


When I perform A/B comparisons I put my speakers side by side and run
mono recordings before I try stereo tests. Doing this lets me check the
majority of the issues I want to evaluate and allows for a quick change
via the balance control. If I hear positive A/B results (or at least no
harm) I try stereo. (I ask a family member to switch or not switch
source cables so I am blind)

I understand some of the reasons why blind testing might not be the only
way to go. it's when the sighted only crowd say blind is useless.
that's when I think their credibility is lost.

MD wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW


When I perform A/B comparisons I put my speakers side by side and run
mono recordings before I try stereo tests. Doing this lets me check the
majority of the issues I want to evaluate and allows for a quick change
via the balance control. If I hear positive A/B results (or at least no
harm) I try stereo. (I ask a family member to switch or not switch
source cables so I am blind)

I understand some of the reasons why blind testing might not be the only
way to go. it's when the sighted only crowd say blind is useless.
that's when I think their credibility is lost.

If I understood you you're doing exactly what I described in the Audio
Amateur some five years ago as the "left-rigt method" for comparing
audio components. One is on the left the other one on the right.
You are blinded. You tick off your prefernce.
Your assistant changes ( or does not change) randomly the components
being compared from side to side.
You listen and tick off again. If you achieve 75% consistency in your
preference in 15 trials you have a statistically valid result FOR YOU.
I'll repeat "for you" because you're what you are- like no one else.
If I know you and respect your judgment it may influence me- that's
all.
Any pretence that someone has a test valid for everyone else is
snake oil and nonsense. And physicians know what snake oil is;
if anyone does.
Ludovic Mirabel

MD said:

When I perform A/B comparisons

Do you realize you're talking to the whole world now? That includes all
kinds of humans, especially Normals. You're not ensconced in the safety
of the Hive here.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.