[Arny Krueger]

"bear" wrote in message

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:46:29 -0800, bear wrote
(in article ):
.

This is basic, no?

It's also simple. Take any system, take one component in
that system and switch it for another of the same type
and listen for differences. Test conditions are known
because the only thing changed from one component to the
next is the component under test. All else is the same
for both.

You fail to comprehend that if the system under test
happens to have distortion components that "mask" then
the test is certainly valid for the system, but not to
any other system any place else.

In fact, the most common source of masking is the music itself. By that, I
mean the acoustical sounds that musical instruments make when a musician
plays them.

[Steve[_15_]]

Well we ABX my Squeezebox and my Arcam Alpha 7SE CD. We burned a CD
for the Arcam and defined a playlist for the SB and played them
together in sync (manually). As we didn't have the machinery we didn't
match the volume but put the switch down when switching and then back
up again after the switch until tester was happy.

Not very scientific I know but my aims were simple - was I able to
hear a difference between the two on my mid end home system - and the
conclusion was no!

In my searches over the internet I found a link to a spanish site
which is very interesting - I am sure Arny will love it!

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...ebasciegas.htm

[josko]

"Steve" wrote in message
...
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...ebasciegas.htm

Excellent. My favourite line:

"YES WERE DIFFERENCES OF SOUND between the Discman and Audionote,
although very subtle and confirming all the group that sounded better
the Discman." :-)

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"josko" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...ebasciegas.htm

Excellent. My favourite line:

"YES WERE DIFFERENCES OF SOUND between the Discman and Audionote,
although very subtle and confirming all the group that sounded better
the Discman." :-)

But please don't forget an example of a portable CD player sounded better
than did some very serious models.
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/480/

[BEAR]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:32:01 -0800, bear wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:43:08 -0800, bear wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:17:08 -0800, bear wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Greg Wormald" wrote in message


The very set-up of much ABX testing (which is most often
short segments of music quickly switched), cannot test
for what most music lovers are seeking--long term
enjoyment of music listening.
Th
massive snip
snipped again
Some people can't "hear". They will likely not detect any differences between
components. Many others won't hear. They are so tied to their preconceived
notions that even if such tests proved them wrong, they wouldn't admit it,
even to themselves (like those who insist that all amplifiers, preamps, and
CD players sound the same, or that there is no difference between SACD and
Redbook CDs).

I'm in general agreement with this...

snippo

This is where I do not understand you. As long as nothing else changes except
the device under test the rest of the system simply isn't that important to
the test. Sure the rest of the system must be good enough in the first place
that a difference, if it exists, can be detected. I wouldn't, for instance,
try to evaluate the effect of interconnects using a $50 amplified pair of
computer speakers. But assuming a decent set of speakers reasonably good
amplifiers and signal sources, if you switch cables and the sound of the
system doesn't change to the point where no one on the listening panel can
statistically, reliably tell which set of cables is which, then I would have
to deduce that there is a high probability that no difference between the
sound of the two interconnects exist.

A "high probability" perhaps. But only perhaps.
A deduction of this sort simply does not rise to the level of certainty required
in order to generalize results. If you do not see why this is so, then further
discussion is pointless?


The rest of the system OTHER than the units under
snip

To me you aren't doing a very good job of explaining it at all, but I think I
finally understand what you are saying. Basically, I think you are saying
that just because no difference between two components was detected using
set-up "A" (due to such factors as room acoustics, speaker distortion,
frequency response, etc) doesn't necessarily mean that differences don't
exist and won't be detected in set-up "B" with different room acoustics,
different speakers etc.

This is true. I am saying this.

I am going beyond this to suggest that in some set-ups (as you call it) one will
be absolutely unable to detect differences (reliably) that are actually present.

All this time I thought you were saying that speaker
distortion, frequency response and room acoustics would affect different
amps, preamps, interconnects, or signal sources differently in the SAME
system during the same test. Is that what you are getting at? If so I am in
complete agreement and we would have saved a lot of time and bandwidth if you
had just said that at the beginning. Put it down to miscommunication.

Well, your sentence construction here is slightly unclear.
But, if by "differently" you mean that the system used in the test might "mask"
- meaning obscure the true sonic character of a given DUT - then yes, it may. My
point is that if this is not in anyway determined and controlled by some means,
then the results are only valid for the specific test conducted.

_-_-bear

PS. to the extent that a given speaker load (for example) causes a significant
enough difference in freq response and distortion in two amps under test, then
there would be a "difference" between them (if it was audible) - but this is not
really in question, imho. The question comes in terms of what rises to an
audible difference that can be reliably detected - compared to what so very many
people appear to hear when asked for subjective or casual observation.

[BEAR]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message


Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of a
snipressing the problem of false positives.

We can agree then that there are no tests that actually
take into account this issue, therefore all tests thus
far are suspect in terms of the significance of the test
results?

Not at all. In fact there is an international standard, ITU BS 1116, that
specifically addresses this situation.

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Available only by subscription or purchase.

Why don't you paraphrase the key aspects for discussion?
Or excerpt key points (legal, you know...)

Thanks,

_-_-bear

[Arny Krueger]

"bear" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"bear" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"bear" wrote in message


Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of
a suppressing the problem of false positives.

We can agree then that there are no tests that actually
take into account this issue, therefore all tests thus
far are suspect in terms of the significance of the test
results?

Not at all. In fact there is an international standard,
ITU BS 1116, that specifically addresses this situation.

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Available only by subscription or purchase.

When I bought my copy, it cost me $11 and delivery was instantaneous. I
think the current price would be affected by the weak dollar, but not to an
unmanagable degree.

Why don't you paraphrase the key aspects for discussion?

Here's a start:

Contents:

1. General
2. Experimental design
3. Selection of listening panels
4. Test method
5. Attributes
6. Programme material
7. Reproduction devices
8. Listening conditions
9. Statistical analysis
10. Presentation of the results of the statistical analyses
11. Contents of test reports.

[Steven Sullivan]

bear wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message


Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of a
snipressing the problem of false positives.

We can agree then that there are no tests that actually
take into account this issue, therefore all tests thus
far are suspect in terms of the significance of the test
results?

Not at all. In fact there is an international standard, ITU BS 1116, that
specifically addresses this situation.

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Available only by subscription or purchase.

specifically, it costs a whopping $20.26 to download.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

[BEAR]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
bear wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message


Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of a
snipressing the problem of false positives.
We can agree then that there are no tests that actually
take into account this issue, therefore all tests thus
far are suspect in terms of the significance of the test
results?
Not at all. In fact there is an international standard, ITU BS 1116, that
specifically addresses this situation.

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Available only by subscription or purchase.

specifically, it costs a whopping $20.26 to download.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

Since no one wants to state what it actually says in the sections where it
applies to this discussion, I'll presume it says nothing that is dispositive.
Doubt that I will spend hard earned money to download a document that is of
questionable value, and certainly not to merely debate here on rahe.

Feel free to excerpt key sections - it's legal.

_-_-bear

[Steven Sullivan]

bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bear wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bear" wrote in message


Put it another way, IF the distortions present are of a
snipressing the problem of false positives.
We can agree then that there are no tests that actually
take into account this issue, therefore all tests thus
far are suspect in terms of the significance of the test
results?
Not at all. In fact there is an international standard, ITU BS 1116, that
specifically addresses this situation.

http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en

Available only by subscription or purchase.

specifically, it costs a whopping $20.26 to download.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

Since no one wants to state what it actually says in the sections where it
applies to this discussion, I'll presume it says nothing that is dispositive.

I don't know what it says, as I don't own a copy. Then again, I'm not
the one insisting that what it says, needs to be posted here.

Doubt that I will spend hard earned money to download a document that is of
questionable value, and certainly not to merely debate here on rahe.

So, you've determined the value of an ITU recommendation, without knowing
what it is. That talent must come in handy.

Feel free to excerpt key sections - it's legal.

Feel free to spend a whopping $20 to satisfy your persistent curiousity.
That's legal too. Btw, what do you spend each month for Usenet access?

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic