[R. Stanton]

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
most
similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
consider
the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

I am proposing a new test. Let us call it: the X-Y test.

The computer selects (randomly) one of the following four
combinations
of signals, AA, BB, AB, BA, and sends it to switches X and Y. In
this
test, the subject uses only two switches. He does an AB comparison of
the two sounds and notes if they are the same, or different.

Sources

B --------------
. .
Switches
A --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- X
B --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- Y
A --------------

B --------------

B --------------

After each trial, the computer records the answer, then randomly
selects another pair of signals to go to switches X and Y. The trials
continue until a reasonable accuracy is achieved.

How the test is scored:

The answers to all trials (AA, BB, AB, BA) are counted. Answers are
scored the same way as ABX system scores answers.

What if someone tries to cheat?

Suppose someone tried to cheat by putting down a false answer, such
as:
"heard difference" when she actually didn't hear a difference? It
wouldn't work.

1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score of of 50%
correct.

A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not* hear a
difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the ABX
test,
and would give a more accurate indication of someones ability to hear
a
difference in the components.

Bob Stanton

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg clanked:

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.

Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
most
similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
consider
the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

When participating in an ABX test[sic], can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

No you cannot, but you are, of course, free to gouge out your eyeballs at
any time.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Sander deWaal]

"R. Stanton" said:

Better than ABX?


Yup.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Enjoying is irrelevant. Preferences will be assimilated. You are
noncompliant with the Hive. You will be terminated.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

R. Stanton wrote:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
seen touted from time to time.
Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
their different....pick A.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
music?

Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
when you switch; it is up to the listener.

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

Better than ABX?

"Better" than what?


ABX has become the standard test for comparison
of audio components.

Based on the periodicals that I'm aware over the last 30
years, no manufacture or audio magazine has ever used
ABX in product development or reviews. To imply
"standard" is to denote a battery of protocols in its use.
There are none to date do to a whole raft of
limitations/unknowns.


It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it.

That depends on the application. It is most successful when
differences can be detected as a result of its use. But it is
of no statistical practicality/significance when you generate
null data. Only proving that one can in fact discern the
difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


Their complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to
hear differences between components.

True, but this doesn't necessarily rule out the device. One
must consider the psychological disposition, hearing acuity
and training of the subjects. There are many "standards"
(cross-checks) to limit or isolate the human influence
variable per say, but it is very expensive.


What if someone tries to cheat?

That's why the sample group size is significant.


1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give
a score of 50% correct.

Ok


2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.

This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score
of of 50% correct.

Ok... or the model wasn't designed suitably for the task
at hand.


A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not*
hear a difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

"*not* hear a difference"... an actual difference could
exist but the methodology may not be statistically sensitive
enough to discern it from the data.


I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the
ABX test, and would give a more accurate indication of
someones ability to hear a difference in the components.

Maybe, maybe not.

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better

About time too!





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.


LOL!!!!!

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 1:52 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B. IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
seen touted from time to time.
Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
their different....pick A.

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg droned:

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
to be heard.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 9:51 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg clanked:

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
Proverbs 26:5?

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg pretends to piety.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.

Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
Proverbs 26:5?

The main point is that you have never once undergone an aBxism ritual.
You've probably never even seen one of the dread torture boxes up close.
You're nothing but a Hivie troll, sent to RAO, probably on the orders of the
maniacal Dr. Not, to deflect attention from the Krooborg.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
"R. Stanton" said:

Better than ABX?


Yup.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.


Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

wrote:

Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better

I've come to that same conclusion toopid.

[George M. Middius]

Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.

"Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
music?

Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
when you switch; it is up to the listener.

Great, thanks for the answer.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?


Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
to be heard.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Great, thanks for the answer.

No, you may not borrow Arnii's aBxism torture box.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
example, listen to the same passage of music for as
long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 7:24 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg droned:

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
example, listen to the same passage of music for as
long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

Nope, I had a question about something that I don't know about and I
asked someone who would know. I understand that it's an odd concept and
all. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg has no compunctions about his immoral agenda.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

Why?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
example, listen to the same passage of music for as
long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject.
Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something
to do. ;-)

Nope, I had a question about something that I don't know
about and I asked someone who would know.

That certainly puts you miles ahead of Morein, who wants to act like he
knows it all, and goes out of his way to avoid asking someone who would
know. He asks Atkinson who only works first-rate rooms with first-rate
equipment and first-rate performers, instead of someone who is more like
what he does, someone who works a variety of rooms, with a variety of
equipment, and with a variety of performers.

I understand that it's an odd concept and all. ;-)

Hey this is RAO. As long as the Middiot and his clique dominate it, you're
right - asking someone who does know about what you don't know about is a
very strange thing to do here.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 9:40 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg has no compunctions about his immoral agenda.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?
Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)Why?


So that I can communicate with interesting people like you and
Arny. Maybe I should get a life. :-)

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg deviates from Hivie protocols.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

Why?

So that I can communicate with interesting people like you

Sarcasm from a 'borg? How para-human of you.

Maybe I should get a life. :-)

First, fix your newsreader.

Second, admit the truth about the nonsense you posted ("aBx is the gold
standard..." etc.). Admit it was a troll. Otherwise, you've lowered yourself
so far that your only intellectual peer is duh-Mikey McBugEater.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 7, 9:11 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg deviates from Hivie protocols.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?
Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)
Why?
So that I can communicate with interesting people like youSarcasm from a 'borg? How para-human of you.

Maybe I should get a life. :-)First, fix your newsreader.

Second, admit the truth about the nonsense you posted ("aBx is the gold
standard..." etc.). Admit it was a troll. Otherwise, you've lowered yourself
so far that your only intellectual peer is duh-Mikey McBugEater.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be better, than
ABX.

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
town. It is the defacto standard.

[Arny Krueger]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
oups.com

It wasn't a troll. I really think a simpler test would be
better, than ABX.

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the
only game in town. It is the defacto standard.

Nope, AFAIK ABC/hr is the far more commonly-used methodology these days.
Check ITU recommendation BS 1116, for example. OK, so there are only about
21,000 google hits. That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


That's because the riff-raff can handle three letters,
but 5 letters and a slash exceeds their mental abiliites. ;-)


Ooh, a joke, made of solid concrete.

Neat.
Almost wetted my pants there, NoT! ;-).


Now do your impression of a drooling nerd when confronted with an
image of a Cray computer ;-)


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
On Dec 7, 9:11 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]






Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
town. It is the defacto standard.

Just like a Krooturd

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.

I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.

--
Bill

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg said:

Did I say ABX was the gold standard? It appears to be the only game in
town. It is the defacto standard.

The "standard" that nobody ever uses? Including you, by your own admission.
What are you smoking?

Fix your newsreader, 'borg.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said to The Big ****:

Now do your impression of a drooling nerd when confronted with an
image of a Cray computer ;-)

"Been there done, that."





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger"

I understand that it's an odd concept and all. ;-)

Hey this is RAO. As long as the Middiot and his clique
dominate it, you're right - asking someone who does know
about what you don't know about is a very strange thing
to do here.

On RAP in responding to a question about becoming
professional audio engineer you wrote "you need to keep
developing your skills and keep up with new technology.
Occasional seminars, visits to trade shows, and reading
a few of the industry periodicals also help."

These are words you never lived by, Arny. Aren't you
being hypocritical about you own advice "asking someone
who does know about what you don't know"?

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison
of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

In home auditioning has always been the "standard"
audiophile response. Beyond that one has to consider
the equipment (source, amplifier, speaker) under
evaluation before determining methodology.

But your question does not consider the human
emotional response ("comparison tests") which is
the ultimate arbitrator... or at least the one most
closely associated with your wallet.