Some weeks ago Mr. Bath the one and only moderator of rec.audio.high-end
forum got tired of censoring out disagreement with his party line and
announced a ban on the DBT discussion.

And this is how his ban works:

"Message 1 in thread

From: )

Subject: James Randi on Stereophile: "The Audio World Is Aroused"

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

Date: 2004-11-27 10:05:09 PST

"As he mentioned was forthcoming, Randi has taken up the discussion with

Mr. Atkinson of Stereophile, making clear his challenge to doing a test

for the audibility of "stones" etc. in a test. He mentions once again

that he will pay 1,000,000 Us dollars if such can be demonstrated in a

double blind test, in which the mag gets to have a big hand in designing

the test to their best advantage."

And Outsor gets this supporting message from Sullivan on the 28th.:

"The only real shame is that audiophile culture adopts scientific jargon
when it suits it, but avoids, and even militates against,

established scientific *methods* of reality-testing claims of audible
difference."

Now suppose someone points out that "methods" become "scientific"
only

when their validity to be a useful tool for establishing audio differences
between comparable components of ANY KIND WHATSOEVER has been proven by
solid experimentation and the proof confirmed by other researchers. Further
he might say that all the attempts so far ended in a null result "The panel
majority can not hear a difference". BUT some do better than others while
most are completely befuddled by the "test". In other words: "testing"
prevents people from hearing differences consistently enough for
statistical validity. As could be expected whenever anyone tries to quantify
differences between the rendition of complex musical signals. Note that in
Sean Olive's loudspeaker tests the same majority was quite unequivocal in
*preferring* some speakers over the others. Even though when "tested" they
would lose their bearings

Want confirmation? Look up Sean Olive in JAES '03, 51(9);806-828.
These are his results based on a +/= 300 listeners on his panel.

Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse. It is not
my business to say why. All I know is that were there a well-established
"test" it would be used by music schools for their exams, and for judging
the piano and violin competitions, it would be selected by virtuosi choosing
their instrument etc. The transmission from the ear-lobes to the temporal
lobe brain cortex is a little more complex than Outsor and Sullivan imagine.

This response (and any such) to the " prove it by DBT" challenges
by Randis and their RAHE followers would be banned had it been posted to
RAHE. You see, the challenges to subject oneself to a "test" are not
"discussion of DBT" but the response is. So much for the internet freedom.

Ludovic Mirabel

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
So much for the internet freedom.

Seems you got this drivel posted somehow so there does seem to be
freedom to post whatever you want on the "internet". Freedom to post
wherever you want is a different matter entirely.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
So much for the internet freedom.

Seems you got this drivel posted somehow so there does seem to be
freedom to post whatever you want on the "internet". Freedom to post
wherever you want is a different matter entirely.

Guy, I agree with your comment conceptually. Mirabel obviously was able to
post his comments, just not in the forum of his choosing.

Ironically, it was Mirabel's incessant incoherent trashing of DBTs that
contributed to RAHE trying to ban all discussion of them.

Mirabel also shows his ignorance of other relevant facts by confusing Usenet
with the Internet. He does not seem to know that Usenet pre-existed the
Internet, by at least a decade.

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem
I'm looking at an eye chart. Or I'm the greatest golfer in the
world, unless you keep score.

Nice metaphors.

Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption,
I think), why not simply confine your testing to those who test well?
The whole point of the challenge is to find ANYONE who can hear the
claimed differences. Stereopile should bring their Golden Ears to the
table. I'll hold my breath while they squirm.

Atkinson's recent vieled threats of legal action against me indicate that
he's really beginning to feel the stress from this Randi thing. Couldn't
happen to a nicer guy, eh?

Annika1980 wrote





Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem I'm looking
at an eye chart.


You are confusing a testee's ability to perform the test with the complexity
or difficultness (of the task) involve in performing the test.



Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep score.


You're confusing your feebleness here with your inability to understand your
purpose in life.



Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption, I think),
why not simply confine your testing to those who test well? The whole point of
the challenge is to find ANYONE who can hear the claimed differences.
Stereopile should bring their Golden Ears to the table.
I'll hold my breath while they squirm.


Same here.

The only bull**** I'm detecting here is the one coming out of your yap.
Why not hold your breath for as long as it'll take -- you're breathing my
oxygen.

"JBorg" wrote in message
news
Annika1980 wrote





Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem
I'm looking at an eye chart.

You are confusing a testee's ability to perform the test with the
complexity or difficultness (of the task) involve in performing the
test.

Borg, its completly in character for you express sympathy for and with
losers.

Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep score.

You're confusing your feebleness here with your inability to
understand your purpose in life.

Bogus attempt at spirituality noted.

Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption,
I think), why not simply confine your testing to those who test
well? The whole point of the challenge is to find ANYONE who can
hear the claimed differences. Stereopile should bring their Golden
Ears to the table. I'll hold my breath while they squirm.

Same here.

I seriously doubt that many of them will take responsibility for their
actions any more than their no-nothing leader. There are at least two SP
reviewers who are reasonbly factual. But the vast majority of them *listen*
with their eyes, and would be hard pressed if confined to using just their
ears in a level-matched, time-synched test. A DBT shoot-out would be a
slaughter. Note that they've all had many years of free chances to train
their ears how to do DBTs at their own convenience.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"JBorg" wrote in message
news
Annika1980 wrote





Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except
whem
I'm looking at an eye chart.

You are confusing a testee's ability to perform the test with the
complexity or difficultness (of the task) involve in performing
the
test.

Borg, its completly in character for you express sympathy for and
with
losers.

Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep score.

You're confusing your feebleness here with your inability to
understand your purpose in life.

It's possible that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning
to others.

Dear Mr. Anikai, dear Mr. Nousaine
I am not talking faith, theory, speculation reasoning. I'm talking facts. They are like that: Sean Olive, collaborator of Floyd Toole, a researcher that no one would suspect of any antipathy to DBT/ABX or of "suibjectivism" published the results of his loudspeaker listening tests in that well-known subjectivist rag; Journal of Audio Engineers Society.
As far as I know his panel was the largest ever assembled;
around 300 listeners. He tested double blind (but for reasons of his own not ABX) 3 (three) loudspeakers-, A, B and C. By tests A was closest to the flat full frequency range, another one very close to A and C was very ragged. (Incidentally I guessed which one it was and had my guess confirmed by Sean Olive in cofidence)
The results were as follows: most by far of the untrained lisateners were unable to identify spekers with statistical validity when DBT tested BUT were consistent in their preference for the best speaker performer when listening.
I and everybody here is fully aware of the theories, convictions, opinions and dearly held FAITH of Krueger, Nousaine etc. But this is about research facts. I could say something rude like "Put it ib your pipe and smoke it" but
instead I'll suggest that they complain to Sean Olive and JAES.
Ludovic Mirabel
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader and my favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear Audio Guy
"Nousaine" wrote in message ...
(Annika1980) wrote:
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

That might be true when you are not sure of your claim. But in every other
field of endeavor competition or challenge improves performance. If it didn't
we'd all been eaten by lions centuries ago.


Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem I'm
looking
at an eye chart. Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep
score.

Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption, I
think),
why not simply confine your testing to those who test well? The whole point
of
the challenge is to find ANYONE who can hear the claimed differences.
Stereopile should bring their Golden Ears to the table.
I'll hold my breath while they squirm.

I'll add to the quotient by agreeing to supply the test equipment (and if
needed the challenge reference equipment) and offering to pay any subject who
can reliably identify any wire, cable or amplifier by "sound alone" under
listening bias controlled conditions $200 out of my own pocket.

I am not talking faith, theory, speculation reasoning. I'm talking facts.
They are like that: Sean Olive, collaborator of Floyd Toole, a researcher
that no one would suspect of any antipathy to DBT/ABX or of "suibjectivism"
published the results of his loudspeaker listening tests in that well-known
subjectivist rag; Journal of Audio Engineers Society.

I find it interesting that while Mr. Mirabel can name the publishing
organization and the author of this paper, he is unable to name the actual
paper. Sean Olive has been a fairly prolific author, and has even written a
few papers that somewhat resemble Mirabel's description. It would be very
helpful if Mirable could possibly recollect the name, date of publication
and/or preprint number of the paper he is referencing.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem I'm looking
at an eye chart. Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep
score.

Well, it's more like saying you're the best golfer in the world, unless you're
on the first tee of your first US Open.

Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption, I think),
why not simply confine your testing to those who test well?

Well that makes sense. Unless those are the people who can't hear well to begin
with. But there ought to be *someone*.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Annika1980) wrote:
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

That might be true when you are not sure of your claim. But in every other
field of endeavor competition or challenge improves performance. If it didn't
we'd all been eaten by lions centuries ago.

Now *that's* bull****. Pretty much every golfer I know hits the ball better on
the range than on the course.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I seriously doubt that many of them will take responsibility for their
actions any more than their no-nothing leader. There are at least two SP
reviewers who are reasonbly factual. But the vast majority of them *listen*
with their eyes, and would be hard pressed if confined to using just their
ears in a level-matched, time-synched test. A DBT shoot-out would be a
slaughter. Note that they've all had many years of free chances to train
their ears how to do DBTs at their own convenience.

The real problem is not being tested under pressure. The real problem is the
amount of time it can take to distinguish subtleties. It's not at all uncommon,
for example, to have things around you that look the same, even though your
eyesight is good enough to distinguish differences between them. Then after
time you notice something you never noticed before, because of the lighting, or
your mood, or whatever. This might take minutes, hours, or years. Then you can
notice it quite clearly. Maybe you try on 2 pairs of shoes in the store, and
they both feel comfortable. You buy them both. Over time you realize you start
favoring one over the other. A small problem in one that you didn't notice at
first starts to get your attention and annoy you over time.

The same can be true with music. So the real problem is the length of time it
would take to do a real-world double blind test. It is pretty impractical. Of
course, this relates to subtle differences. If someone is saying there are
"dramatic" differences but can't hear them in a DBT then we have a problem.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

I find it interesting that while Mr. Mirabel can name the publishing
organization and the author of this paper, he is unable to name the actual
paper. Sean Olive has been a fairly prolific author, and has even written a
few papers that somewhat resemble Mirabel's description. It would be very
helpful if Mirable could possibly recollect the name, date of publication
and/or preprint number of the paper he is referencing.

You say "I find it interesting ...". That makes two of us.
On 2004-10-11 in this forum in the "Audio opinion?" discussion you
quoted my reference which was: "In September 2003 Sean E. Olive ,
Fellow of Audio
Eng. Socy.,... published a paper in the Journal of Audio Eng.
Society on p. 806 entitled:
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus
untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
You followed the quote with your polemic. Is your memory so short? Or
did you ever read the article before commenting on it?
I'll reiterate. Two end=points were researched. 1) can you
tell the difference between the three speakers when following the test
protocol? ? 2) which one of the three you prefer?.
By far the largest majority failed in task 1. They could
not tell the difference with statistical validity when tested under
the testing protocol The small group of trained Harmand Kardon
technicians did best *but not faultlessly*.Most of the large group of
audio salesmen failed but not as badly as the audio engineering
students and the audio reviewers (yes!).
group But there was a near unanimity in preference. The full-frequency
flat speaker was preferred by the same people who failed to
distinguish it when befuddled by "testing.
I repeat: Testing appears to interfere with choice of
substantial majority of listeners.
Another point of interest. A few years ago I proposed
that to show convincigly that DBT/ABX helps to recognise ANY
differences between anything and anything else in audio one compares
loudspeakers because even the "objectivists" agree that the
differences are gross and *will not be missed*. You derided the
proposal because it was not worth it to prove the obvious. Well, it
appears that the role of the DBT is not all that obvious to Olive and
his panel.
I refrained from digging through to give the exact reference but will
if you insist.
Ludovic Mirabel

jeffc wrote:


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Annika1980) wrote:
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

That might be true when you are not sure of your claim. But in every other
field of endeavor competition or challenge improves performance. If it
didn't
we'd all been eaten by lions centuries ago.

Now *that's* bull****. Pretty much every golfer I know hits the ball better
on
the range than on the course.




While it's no doubt true that some people, e.g. professional athletes, often
perform better under "game" or competititve conditions, it is equally true that
many non-professionals (or those that don't practice as often) may very well
suffer from what psychologists call performance anxiety. This condition exists
in many situations. Public speaking, taking examinations in school, and indeed
for some, taking auditory discrimination tests (especially those that might
involve very small differences) are but a few of the situations in which some
people perform worse rather than better.


Bruce J. Richman

"jeffc" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I seriously doubt that many of them will take responsibility for
their actions any more than their no-nothing leader. There are at
least two SP reviewers who are reasonbly factual. But the vast
majority of them *listen* with their eyes, and would be hard pressed
if confined to using just their ears in a level-matched,
time-synched test. A DBT shoot-out would be a slaughter. Note that
they've all had many years of free chances to train their ears how
to do DBTs at their own convenience.

The real problem is not being tested under pressure.

I'm in favor of minimizing stress whenever reasonably possible. For example,
its hard to imagine a more stress-free testing environment than PCABX.

The real problem is the amount of time it can take to distinguish
subtleties.

Time-unlimited ABX tests have given the golden ears no joy.

So the real problem is the length
of time it would take to do a real-world double blind test. It is
pretty impractical.

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

If someone is saying there are "dramatic" differences but can't hear
them in a DBT then we have a problem.

And of course, it happens all the time that people claim dramatic
improvments from snake oil, and then bomb out when put to the test.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:54:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

Sample length.

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader and my =
favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear Audio =
Guy

Oh I wouldn't miss your ranting and raving for the world, Dr.
Know-Nothing! I enjoy watching your feeble attempts to show the world
how RAHE has wronged you. Funny how your railing against DBTs gets
you even less notice here on RAO that it did on RAHE. And RAHE has
been a much more enjoyable place without your ranting too.

In article ,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

jeffc wrote:


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
(Annika1980) wrote:
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

That might be true when you are not sure of your claim. But in every other
field of endeavor competition or challenge improves performance. If it
didn't
we'd all been eaten by lions centuries ago.

Now *that's* bull****. Pretty much every golfer I know hits the ball better
on
the range than on the course.




While it's no doubt true that some people, e.g. professional athletes, often
perform better under "game" or competititve conditions, it is equally true
that
many non-professionals (or those that don't practice as often) may very well
suffer from what psychologists call performance anxiety. This condition
exists
in many situations. Public speaking, taking examinations in school, and
indeed
for some, taking auditory discrimination tests (especially those that might
involve very small differences) are but a few of the situations in which some
people perform worse rather than better.

Here's Google for 'professional golf yips':

http://www.google.com/search?q=profe...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
So the real problem is the length
of time it would take to do a real-world double blind test. It is
pretty impractical.

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

You're still not quite getting the point.
http://www.pcabx.com/
See "properly designed" listening test. My point is that IMO their idea of
"properly designed" is completely wrong when it comes to realizing
differences in sound that become important to you over time. This isn't a
math quiz.

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:09:03 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:54:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

Sample length.

Since Arnold hasn't offered a rebuttal, it looks like I'm right again.

I'm still wondering how he's going to do a quick-switching dbt on
Shakti Stones. I think *he's* still puzzling that out as well.

Of course, in the past few days, he's adopted a new "debating trade"
tactic and that's a refusal to answer legitimate questions, although
he *did* attempt an answer to Stephen, one which ironically confirmed
Stephen's own analysis. Maybe that's why he's apparently afraid to
even address certain questions or certain answers to some of his
questions.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:09:03 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:54:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

Sample length.

Since Arnold hasn't offered a rebuttal, it looks like I'm right again.

I'm still wondering how he's going to do a quick-switching dbt on
Shakti Stones. I think *he's* still puzzling that out as well.

Of course, in the past few days, he's adopted a new "debating trade"
tactic and that's a refusal to answer legitimate questions, although
he *did* attempt an answer to Stephen, one which ironically confirmed
Stephen's own analysis. Maybe that's why he's apparently afraid to
even address certain questions or certain answers to some of his
questions.

Credit where credit is due, although it took some persistence.

NB My new newsreader has built-in spellchecking. This could mean fewer
excuses to arbitrarily abandon a thread, and I'll use the word
'occasion' more often.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message


On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:54:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

Sample length.

False claim. The length of the test is limited by how long the listener
listens to the samples and switches back and forth. That is essentially
unlimited.

I'm still wondering how he's going to do a quick-switching dbt on
Shakti Stones. I think *he's* still puzzling that out as well.

Nope, the way to quick-switch Shakti stones is similar to the way that
Harman quick-switches loudspeakers so they occupy the same space when they
are playing - mechanical positioners.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So the real problem is the length
of time it would take to do a real-world double blind test. It is
pretty impractical.

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

You're still not quite getting the point.

You're not answering my question.

http://www.pcabx.com/ See "properly designed" listening test.

There's 10 items on that list. Referencing the whole list and then not
addressing any of the points seems like a pretty strange thing to do.

My point is that IMO their
idea of "properly designed" is completely wrong when it comes to
realizing differences in sound that become important to you over
time.

That's no problem at all. Items 2,3, and 4 specifically address your
concerns.

This isn't a math quiz.

Of course not. In math quizes there is basically a time limit. There's no
time limit at all in a PCABX test. Furthermore, listener training sessiions
are the logical lead-up to the test of the final hypothesis. They can go on
for as long as they need to, as well.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:30:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:54:17 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

Sample length.

False claim. The length of the test is limited by how long the listener
listens to the samples and switches back and forth. That is essentially
unlimited.

False. The length of the sample is indeed finite. Therefore, it's a
"time limit".

You lose.

I'm still wondering how he's going to do a quick-switching dbt on
Shakti Stones. I think *he's* still puzzling that out as well.

Nope, the way to quick-switch Shakti stones is similar to the way that
Harman quick-switches loudspeakers so they occupy the same space when they
are playing - mechanical positioners.

Oh really. Tell us how that's going to be accomplished. Robots? After
all, a large turntable like Harman might use will be useless.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

You're still not quite getting the point.

You're not answering my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant.

This isn't a math quiz.

Of course not. In math quizes there is basically a time limit.

That's beside the point.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:vdSdnbejCOI_CzPcRVn-
:



Atkinson's recent vieled threats of legal action against me indicate that
he's really beginning to feel the stress from this Randi thing. Couldn't
happen to a nicer guy, eh?



You really have a different way of looking at things.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Feeling better now? Or does one have to send you to your room to let the grown-ups continue the grown-up conversation?
Regards Ludovic M.
"Audio Guy" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader and my =
favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear Audio =
Guy

Oh I wouldn't miss your ranting and raving for the world, Dr.
Know-Nothing! I enjoy watching your feeble attempts to show the world
how RAHE has wronged you. Funny how your railing against DBTs gets
you even less notice here on RAO that it did on RAHE. And RAHE has
been a much more enjoyable place without your ranting too.

I gather that Sean Olive's test results upset you. If new experimental evidence always agreed with what looks like common sense to the annika1's of this world who could be bothered experimenting?
Or have you better experimental evidence?
Ludovic Mirabel
"Annika1980" wrote in message ...
Conclusion: Being "tested" makes your performance worse.

Bull****. That's like saying that I have 20/20 vision except whem I'm looking
at an eye chart. Or I'm the greatest golfer in the world, unless you keep
score.

Assuming that some folks test better than others (a fair assumption, I think),
why not simply confine your testing to those who test well? The whole point of
the challenge is to find ANYONE who can hear the claimed differences.
Stereopile should bring their Golden Ears to the table.
I'll hold my breath while they squirm.

What is this mess? Learn how to use a newsreader please!

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C4DA50.7DF3E030
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Feeling better now? Or does one have to send you to your room to let =
the grown-ups continue the grown-up conversation?
Regards Ludovic M.

Actually, the "grownups" are over on RAHE, a place you can't get into
anymore.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader and =
my =3D
favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear =
Audio =3D
Guy
=20
Oh I wouldn't miss your ranting and raving for the world, Dr.
Know-Nothing! I enjoy watching your feeble attempts to show the world
how RAHE has wronged you. Funny how your railing against DBTs gets
you even less notice here on RAO that it did on RAHE. And RAHE has
been a much more enjoyable place without your ranting too.
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C4DA50.7DF3E030
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD
META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"
META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=3DGENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY
DIVFONT face=3DArialFeeling better now? Or does one have to send you =
to your=20
room to let  the grown-ups continue the grown-up =
conversation?/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArialRegards Ludovic M./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2"Audio Guy" </FONTA=20
"FONT face=3DArial=20
/FONT/AFONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2> wrote in=20
message /FONTA "FONT =
face=3DArial=20
/FONT/AFONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2.../FONT/DIVFONT face=3DArial size=3D2> In article =
</FONTA=20
" FONT face=3DArial=20
/FONT/AFONT face=3DArial =

size=3D2>,BR> "ludovic mirabel" <elmir2m =
@pacificcoast.net>=20
writes:BR>>     & nbsp;   =
 =20
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader and my =
=3DBR>>=20
favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear Audio=20
=3DBR>> GuyBR> BR> Oh I wouldn't miss your ranting and =
raving=20
for the world, Dr.BR> Know-Nothing! I enjoy watching your feeble =
attempts=20
to show the worldBR> how RAHE has wronged you. Funny how your =
railing=20
against DBTs getsBR> you even less notice here on RAO that it did =
on RAHE.=20
And RAHE hasBR> been a much more enjoyable place without your =
ranting=20
too./FONT/BODY/HTML

------=_NextPart_000_002F_01C4DA50.7DF3E030--

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
What is this mess? Learn how to use a newsreader please!



Don't top post, and get a newsreader that can read HTML.
(Granted, Mirabel should not have used HTML)

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" writes:

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
What is this mess? Learn how to use a newsreader please!



Don't top post, and get a newsreader that can read HTML.
(Granted, Mirabel should not have used HTML)

It's only top-posting when one makes comments about things lower in
the previous message. This was a comment on the method of posting and
so does not meet that definition.

And yes he should not use HTML, but I doubt he knows what HTML is
anyway.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" writes:

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
What is this mess? Learn how to use a newsreader please!



Don't top post, and get a newsreader that can read HTML.
(Granted, Mirabel should not have used HTML)

It's only top-posting when one makes comments about things lower in
the previous message.

Yes, it's only top posting when its top posting.

Dear A.G. You do seem to have a problem. I must agree with you. I
know next to nothing about the appropriate treatment having practised in a
different field.. The audio forum is not the proper stage to bore everyone
to death with the display of personal obsessions so with your permission
I'll check out of further correspondence. It is all yours.
Ludovic Mirabel
"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
What is this mess? Learn how to use a newsreader please!

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:


Feeling better now? Or does one have to send you to your room to let =
the grown-ups continue the grown-up conversation?
Regards Ludovic M.

Actually, the "grownups" are over on RAHE, a place you can't get into
anymore.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message =
...
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Special hello to Mr. Audio Guy my most faithful reader
and my favourite comic turn. It would not be the same without you, dear
Audio Guy


Oh I wouldn't miss your ranting and raving for the world, Dr.
Know-Nothing! I enjoy watching your feeble attempts to show the world
how RAHE has wronged you. Funny how your railing against DBTs gets
you even less notice here on RAO that it did on RAHE. And RAHE has
been a much more enjoyable place without your ranting too.

I would go even further than that. The very concept of a "test" to
measure complex sensory perceptions is faulty. The innumerable differences
in age, innate abilities and musical preferences and experiences makes the
idea of an "objective" measurement nonsensical.
The ABX/DBT could be a training tool for some as long as they do
not imagine that their results "prove" anything to anyone else.
Look up the recent storm in a tea-cup between the wine "experts"
( R. Parker and "respected" someone else) about Chateau Pavie. I agree with
Parker: I loved it (when I could still afford it). The lady expert (?
Robinson- can't quite remember) thinks it stinks.
Does it make Parker and myself wrong or right or everyone to
his taste and experience?
Ludovic Mirabel
"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
So the real problem is the length
of time it would take to do a real-world double blind test. It is
pretty impractical.

What are the time limits in a PCABX test?

You're still not quite getting the point.
http://www.pcabx.com/
See "properly designed" listening test. My point is that IMO their idea
of
"properly designed" is completely wrong when it comes to realizing
differences in sound that become important to you over time. This isn't a
math quiz.

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
I'll check out of further correspondence. It is all yours.

Thank God!

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Dear A.G. You do seem to have a problem.

Yes, you and your DBT rants.

I must agree with you.

Good, then you'll quit bringing up the same damn DBT test results
over and over again.

I
know next to nothing

Nice to see you agree with me here too.

I'll check out of further correspondence. It is all yours.
Ludovic Mirabel

Well, son of a gun, he does understand about HTML. Will wonders ever
cease?

No more DBT rants by Ludo on RAO ever again? I'm sure the regulars
will appreciate it as they have ever more important things to
discuss.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message



No more DBT rants by Ludo on RAO ever again? I'm sure the regulars
will appreciate it as they have ever more important things to
discuss.

It appears that in fact RAO has corporately figured out a more rational way
to deal with Ludo than RAHE ever did!

;-)

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...
I would go even further than that. The very concept of a "test" to
measure complex sensory perceptions is faulty.

Only if you fail right? If you personally can't hear a difference in a DBT,
then it doesn;t amtter who else can. For YOU there is no difference.

The innumerable differences
in age, innate abilities and musical preferences and experiences makes the
idea of an "objective" measurement nonsensical.

Are you speaking of tests or measurements, they are different you know.

The ABX/DBT could be a training tool for some as long as they do
not imagine that their results "prove" anything to anyone else.

They don't have to, if the person making the comparison can't hear a
difference it doesn't matter about anybody else.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:34:11 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I would go even further than that. The very concept of a "test" to
measure complex sensory perceptions is faulty.

Only if you fail right? If you personally can't hear a difference in a DBT,
then it doesn;t amtter who else can. For YOU there is no difference.

HEY, a breakthrough!

Now, follow this though to some other ineveitable conclusions.

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:34:11 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They don't have to, if the person making the comparison can't hear a
difference it doesn't matter about anybody else.

Now, change this to "can".

See what happens.