From RAHE:

wrote in message ...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative? If the controlled
testing is so flawed, as claimed to rationalize results disturbing to
dearly held beliefs, then the "audition" silliness done by the hifi mags
must be a couple of orders of magnitude so completely useless as to ignore
them is the only charitable thing to do.

Let's face it, the subjective enterprise folk haven't a leg to stand on,
that is the bottom line until or unless evidence to the contrary can be
provided to the current benchmark that reported differences during
listening alone blind tests don't rise above random guessing.

It is quickly becoming
apparent that this is rejected not for reasons of validity used in all
areas of human research, but because the outcomes are painful and because
to some there are no conditions under which it can be confirmed to them.
It
is a suspension of belief that such can be known and/or the flip of that
coin that like esp and astrology we know it is true because one chooses it
to be so.


It was clear long ago what some people found painful about bias controlled
listening.

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of
them.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

Let's hope they don't adopt that philosophy for pharmaceutical research.

Unless of course you are willing to volunteer as a test subject.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.

Norm

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

In article ,
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.

Why do I run my main system from a $250 integrated amp?

Stephen

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.

Norm

Speak for yourself, Norm, but I use good amplifiers that are between fifteen
and twenty years old. They are not expensive.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at something. It
says nothing about the ethics of a person. But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't
like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the
real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't

like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at
something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the
real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that
acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't

like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind
test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that
ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at
something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

That must be why it is so mainstream.

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects..._aes_paper.pdf

http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...b/chapter6.htm

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some form
of DBT.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections
to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the
real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that
acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who
don't

like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind
test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on
the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that
ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at
something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just
doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely,
ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

That must be why it is so mainstream.

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects..._aes_paper.pdf

http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm


http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...b/chapter6.htm

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone
doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some
form
of DBT.

Mikey, they have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days concerns
codec quality and distinguishability. Since a codec is an algorithm, rather
than a physical device, there is no way to compare codecs other than with
ABX.

In the case of amplifiers, however, we have actual physical devices. The
deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
faith. The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not. When
this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
used for amplifier comparison.

In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to synchronous
detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
synchronous detection? You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
ability to detect differences. The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But I
suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.

So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very well,
and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these disabilities.
You truely are "special".

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.

Norm

Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because
I believe you mean well and listen to others.
But....I think that like many others in this society you
believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype.
My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time
perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch.
My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to
there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats.
My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me
the price of (top grade) parts.
I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did
not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy
like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at
home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid
Monument.
Want more?
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're
listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with
the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in
North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all
other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to
what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will
never be quite
the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a
bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a
system different from mine. Which is fine with me.
I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception
centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince
them away from what they like.
All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever
doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him
and is not "scientific". In particular I object when they tell me that
their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic
research. I know something about that last and objective findings at
the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a
prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal
functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure
makes me feel better"
If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as
long as he does not bully me with it.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.

Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.

That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.

Norm

Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because
I believe you mean well and listen to others.
But....I think that like many others in this society you
believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype.
My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time
perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch.
My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to
there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats.
My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me
the price of (top grade) parts.
I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did
not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy
like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at
home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid
Monument.
Want more?
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're
listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with
the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in
North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all
other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to
what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will
never be quite
the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a
bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a
system different from mine. Which is fine with me.
I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception
centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince
them away from what they like.
All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever
doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him
and is not "scientific". In particular I object when they tell me that
their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic
research. I know something about that last and objective findings at
the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a
prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal
functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure
makes me feel better"
If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as
long as he does not bully me with it.
Ludovic Mirabel

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do it
often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited
usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of
biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable test.
I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only needed to buy
AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it was white.) Also
available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal choice since Mr.
Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his speakers. The result
of the test was that no difference could be heard between mono and biwiring
until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was a slight difference--in
favor of mono wiring.

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

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? Can we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain. According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. 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!

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.

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

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.

NYOB said:
Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

That must be why it is so mainstream.

Our sacrificial goat- suicide bomber of the ABX irregulars now
exploades his backpack. Five addresses and a suicide note on the floor:

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects..._aes_paper.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm
http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.ht http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some form
of DBT.


It must be now noted that the question under discussion here is not
the usefulness of DBT in genral - an excellent research protocol when
appropriate- but usefulness of ABX (NOTE!- ABX, ABX, ABX!!!) for the
audio consumer community when listening for differences in music
reproduction between components. This is an audio forum not the
"Journal of Psychoacoustics". But let it be..
I have had long experience with phony references given by desperate ABX
irregulars, They send one on a wild goose chase to sources that have
zero to do with the subject, like BBC etc.
So I check:. For profit and fun..
Reference Nr. 1 "Guinea pig - a generic subjective test system for
multichannel audio
Discusses the authors' research methodology..

ABX referred to in one paragraph- to say it is not as good as their
own preferred method
Not a word about any *results* of comparing components. Not a word
about what exactly was being compared- good old codecs again? "

Reference Nr2: "Amplifier sound- what are the influences."
You may find it hard to believe but this article does not mention once
ABX or DBTs. The subject is listing the theoretical causes for
variability in the amp. sound . Nothing is compared to anything else.
Once again one is left wondering if the whoever inspired our bomber is
an idiot or if he takes the RAO community for idiots. Take your pick

Reference Nr3: " ABC/Hidden Reference Audio Comparison Tool"
From the preamble: "This is a win32 application written to allow for
blind comparion of multiple audio files."
They prefer ABC/hr to ABX for comparing multiple audio files. Yes
"multiple audio files" whatever on earth that may be in a lab. They do
not seem to stock it in the audio shops.

Reference Nr. 4 " Chapter six- results and analysis"
Quote: "The test subjects were asked to comment on the relative
movement of a centrally located audio image caused by spatially
relocating various bands of the left stereo channel. They were not
limited in the vocabulary of their response, however their answers were
interpreted and entered into 8 different image movement categories (or
combinations of): No Shift, Right, Left, Up, Down, Near, Far, Split.
Occasionally, due to time constraints a few of the trials would be
skipped, which caused some variation in the number of total test
trials".

No comment.

Reference Nr. 5: "CAN WE HEAR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AC POWER CORDS
A BLIND ABX TEST
At last we have something about comparing components. AND ABX too.
Conclusion:
"To many in the engineering community, blind ABX is an accepted
experimental design. Using the blind ABX protocol, we failed to hear
any differences between an assortment of generic power cords and
Nordost Valhalla. Therefore, we cannot conclude that different power
cords produce a difference using the blind ABX protocol.."

Fair enough. Another NEGATIVE "test". The authors being true
researchers continue:.
" However, we also cannot conclude that there are no differences. We
simply failed to prove that differences can be detected to a
statistically significant degree using a blind ABX protocol"

And this ends NYOB's self-sacrificing demonstration that ABX is the
right tool for showing DIFFERENCES between components.
Ludovic Mirabel

Dear NYOB- if you feel again like an obscenity please do it at home.

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

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.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

You lost me when using collate and Ludovic in the same sentence.

My subconscious processes refused to associate those labels.


The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

How would you make any unconscious process aware? If its aware... its
no longer unconscious.


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? Can we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain.

Bob, Could you please proofread before posting? These longwinded
attempts to appear educated fail miserably when you butcher the content
so obviously.

According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. 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!

Do we really need to worry about ABX testing for people who can't
read?


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.

Now I see why you hate ABX... you can't breathe during a test
requiring all your subconscious processes to focus on the test.

It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.

There should be a form of blind testing that works;

How will you decide if it works?

one which is not subject
to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.

So contradictory... a literal catch 44.

ScottW

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections
to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in
the
real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that
acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who
don't

like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind
test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on
the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that
ABX
and
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are
making a difference.

"Professional", Mikey, means that only that one makes money at
something.
It
says nothing about the ethics of a person.

Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question
anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?

But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.

Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.

Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.

Ludovic hasn't a ****ing clue about the validity of ABX, he just
doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.

ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely,
ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.

That must be why it is so mainstream.

http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects..._aes_paper.pdf

http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm


http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/...b/chapter6.htm

http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html


http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone
doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some
form
of DBT.

Mikey, they have no choice. Most of the work of the AES these days
concerns
codec quality and distinguishability. Since a codec is an algorithm,
rather
than a physical device, there is no way to compare codecs other than with
ABX.

In the case of amplifiers, however, we have actual physical devices. The
deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,

Acoustat is substandard? That's how you feel about yours?

because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
faith.

I have no faith at all. My hearing is fine, my brain, contrary to your
propaganda, also works fine, which is why I know that nobody doing serious
research on any aspect of audio, is using sighted listening evaluations.
This is because they all know that ABX is a very reliable way to get results
for difference.

The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not.

Prove it.

When
this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
used for amplifier comparison.


Of course SP has no agenda and is completely unbiased in their view of ABX.
NOT.

In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to
synchronous
detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
synchronous detection?

That's a problem for any sort of A/B comparison.

You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
ability to detect differences.

You have the burden of proof in this question. Can yo prove that ABX does
handicap a human's abiltiy to detect differences?

The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But
I
suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.


Still no answer to the question of who isn't using ABX. That makes you a de
facto loser, again.

So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very
well,
and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these
disabilities.
You truely are "special".

And still smart enough to know you are full of ****, which makes me smarter
than you.

wrote in message
oups.com...

So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or
some other blind listening protocol?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of
trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as
follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal
point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious
one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

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? Can
we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same?
I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to
work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is
an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain.
According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve,
which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to
Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. 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!

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.

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

You keep forgetting the sensitivity observed by sighted observers is not
sensitivity at all, it's expectation.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

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.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

Then it's bad science that has beenadopted in one form or another by
virtually everyone working on audio research..

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.

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.

You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.

It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?

ScottW

wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
nk.net...
From RAHE:

wrote in message
...
We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
listening alone testing. What is the alternative?

We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
world.

You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges
ABX
as
a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every
serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't
like
the
truth reject it.

We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard
amplifiers,
and
possess low quality ears and brains.


How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test
of
any
of
them.
Mikey, it's obvious.

Your judgement is not reliable. You thought I was Powell.
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the
line
to
show that you can hear the things you claim.

Mikey, other people have, as described by Ludovic.
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.

He proves only that he doesn't understand or won't understand, that ABX
and DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who
are making a difference.


Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions

I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do
it often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited
usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of
biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable
test. I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only
needed to buy AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it
was white.) Also available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal
choice since Mr. Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his
speakers. The result of the test was that no difference could be heard
between mono and biwiring until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was
a slight difference--in favor of mono wiring.


My recollection is that he even more strongly supports bi-amping, and doing
that
with two identical stereo amps, each amp handling the total left or right
side, one side of each
amp upper freq and one side of each amp lower freq for that channel.

BTW, I have Vandersteen 4's, I usually bi-amp them in a more
normal fashion, one stereo amp left and right tweeters left and right
other amp woofers left and right, ppostie Vandersteens recommendation.
When I use single stereo amps, like I am right now, I don't bi-wire them,
for
other practical reasons.

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


Too bad that it does nothing to eliminate "imagined sameness".

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

[snip]

Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no
differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of
trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.

Norm Strong

I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.

The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as
follows:

It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal
point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious
one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running
in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample
is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.

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? Can
we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same?
I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to
work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is
an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain.
According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve,
which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to
Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. 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!

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.

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

You keep forgetting the sensitivity observed by sighted observers is not
sensitivity at all, it's expectation.

Maybe, if that's what you expect.
Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or
some other blind listening protocol?

You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
something else.
Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals
, thresholds whatever.
This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to
differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?"
Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do
you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones?
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX
or
some other blind listening protocol?

You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
something else.

Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use
it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.

The point is still that when you search for ABX, you find that it's
discussed in the sense that it is one of only a couple ways of doing
relaible comparisons, you certainly won't find any research people relying
on sighted tests.

Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals
, thresholds whatever.
This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to
differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?"

The answer is still yes, even though this is not the original question you
began with.

Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do
you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones?
Ludovic Mirabel

Ask and you shall recieve:

http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/~steeve/vowels/ICSLP2001.pdf

http://infantstudies.psych.ubc.ca/PEOPLE/JW1988.pdf

http://www.zainea.com/Cyrill.htm

http://www.bell-labs.com/topic/confe...cts/torres.pdf

http://www.edn.com/article/CA56211.html

http://sail.usc.edu/publications/thanasis-SAP2005.pdf

http://www.music-ir.org/evaluation/w...ss_sandler.pdf

http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf

http://www.vxm.com/21R.45.html

http://www.epanorama.net/links/audiocircuits.html

http://www.aes.org/events/116/papers/z5.cfm

http://www.labgruppen.com/Files/Tech...ocedure_v1.pdf

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/.../rhartman_web/

" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using
ABX
or
some other blind listening protocol?

You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
something else.

Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still
use
it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.

The point is still that when you search for ABX, you find that it's
discussed in the sense that it is one of only a couple ways of doing
relaible comparisons, you certainly won't find any research people relying
on sighted tests.

Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals
, thresholds whatever.
This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to
differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?"

The answer is still yes, even though this is not the original question you
began with.

Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do
you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones?
Ludovic Mirabel

Ask and you shall recieve:

In this list, Mikey includes citations such as:
"In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi on
their ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated
place-of-articulation continuum."

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


Too bad that it does nothing to eliminate "imagined sameness".

Very correct, succinctly said.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip

Then it's bad science that has beenadopted in one form or another by
virtually everyone working on audio research..

What the hell is "beenadopted", Mikey? Another vocalization of your shrunken
brain?
Thank you so much for including, in your list of citations,

"In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi on
their ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated
place-of-articulation continuum."

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

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

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX
or
some other blind listening protocol?

You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
something else.

Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use
it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.


Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for
audible difference. He does so explicitly, but it also follows from his
endorsement of *double blind tests* generally (of which ABX is merely one
species) both for subjective testing of audio difference and of
audio-based preference, not only of speakers, but of audio gear generally.

http://www.aes.org/sections/la/PastM...004-08-31.html

"Sean began by describing three types of listening tests:

* Difference
* Descriptive analysis
* Preference / affective

The difference test, obviously, is used for determining whether two audio
devices under test are audibly different from each other. A common method
is double-blind ABX testing.

The descriptive analysis test is for gathering impressions of comparative
audio quality from the listeners. If an ABX test reveals that device “A”
sounds audibly different from device “B,” the descriptive analysis test
would determine in what way they sound different. The descriptive analysis
test has limited usefulness in audio, though.

And after the determinations of “whether different and how different,”
the preference or affective test asks the question, “Which one sounds
better?”

Each test has its own appropriate and inappropriate applications, as well
as its own strengths and potential pitfalls. In any test, biases have to
be controlled in order to obtain meaningful data. Most of his descriptions
of testing methods involved tests of loudspeakers, but the principles can
be put to use with other audio gear as well."

In Olive's now-classic 2003 paper in JAES, he used a randomized,
level-matched double-blind protocol to compare performance of trained to
untrained listeners in 3- and 4-way speaker comparison tests (e.g.,
comparison of 3 or 4 different speakers per session), using four different
types of musical selection. Presentation time was 10-30 sec for each
lousdpeaker with each program. Switching interval was 3 sec, which Olive
admits is not advisable for smaller differences, he and Floyd Toole found
it not to be a limiiting factor for speaker comparisons....demonstrably
less of one than controlling speaker *position*.

Obviously Mr. Olive endorses ABX tests for pairwise difference, but
obviously too, speakers, unlike audio components that aren't
electromechanical transducers, are reasonably likely from physical and
acoustical principles to *actually* sound different. This assumption is
borne out by his double-blind 'preference' results which show statistical
differences between the speakers tested -- something rather unlikely to
happen in a DBT if the speakers didn't really sound different in the first
place. Interestingly, two of the models that received a 'class A' rating
from an audio magazine scored significantly differently , with one rated
'speaker of the year' scored the lowest among speakers compared by both
trained and untrained listeners, in both three- and four-way comparisons,
involving a total of 268 listeners. This loudspeaker -- an electrostatic
hybrid -- rather satisfyingly also *measured* the worst in several key
criteria.

Obviously, too, ABX is unwieldy for comparing more than two sources and
one variable per session. A matrix of ABX tests *could* have been done
encompassing each pairwise combination of speakers in Olive's experiment,
for each program type, for each listener group, at a *vastly* increased
cost in time and effort with little likely increase in power. With the
DBT protocol he *did* use, Olive was more quickly able to statistically
assess effects of speaker difference, listener difference, and difference
in program material.

Dr. Mirabilis can, and likely will, harp on the fact that the Olive paper
did not use *ABX* in this particular set of experiments. But this is not
because Olive fundamentally disavows ABX tests. Quite the contrary. So,
does Dr. Mirabilis believe that ABX -- a randomized, double-blind,
level-matched protocol for comparing two sources, that often employs (but
does not require) short presentations and short switching intervals -- is
*so* different from the randomized, double-blind, level-matched, short
presentation DBT protocol Olive used to compare more than two speakers, as
to be worthy of special suspicion? Does he understand why ABX was not
used *for this experiment*?

Perhaps he should ask Sean Olive this question next time: if you were to
run a listening test on two high-end components, simply to determine if
they sound different, which test would you use?


--

-S

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 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