Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------

A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
questionable to the reputable. Whenever stumped for argument ABX
becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
low cunning to use this dodge).
DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
spread worldwide from there.
The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
without DBT.
That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data. Using DBT
researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
inevitable placebo effect/bias. (For obvious reasons treatment of
psyche is a special case but even there the evidence of reintegration
into society and adequate functioning counts more than bare opinion).
The place of DBT in research in other sciences is also ensured.
Two decades later Arny Krueger ( alone or with others? Some controversy
there of no interest here) proposed ABX as his modification of DBT
suitable for researching differences between audio components. The
method involves playing a snippet A, then a snippet B, then a snippet
X. The listeners are asked to decide if X is more like A or more like
B.
There is no possible objective confirmation- just slashes in the
appropriate square on the paper. The resemblance to research DBT is
only that in both blinding is used. Nothing else.
Everything about ABX was and remains undefined and controversial: How
do you select a representative listener sample?: sex, age, education,
exposure- to what kind of music (hip hop or chamber?), occupation
(salesmen, disk jockeys, audio engineers, musicians?), required number
of panelists for statistical significance. The basic research is
missing.

What about implementation? In four decades of its existence the very
vocal ABX supporters published not one single report of successful
differentiation between any audio components, when reproducing music.
By now there should be dozens of them acceptable to a professional or
at least popular Audio journal. There are none. Such as have been
published had "No difference" outcome
There is no evidence that ABX WORKS to differentiate audio
components' musical reproduction ability. Not even gross let alone
"subtle".
It may or may not have applications in psychometric research in things
such as phase differences, codecs and so on. I know nothing about that
DBT is another thing entirely. To be against DBTs in research is to be
against motherhood. In an audio DBT you can ask: "Which one do you
like better?" a simple question which is much more likely to give a
consistent answer than comparing A then B with X.
Ludovic Mirabel M.D.,M.R.C.P.(Ed),FRCP(C)
I apologise for listing degrees in an audio posting. It is only to
establish credibility. While preparing for my postgrad. specialty
degrees I worked full-time in the Med.Res.Ccil in London at the
exciting time when DBTs were being developed. That is perhaps why I
care about their good name.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------

I concur completely with Ludovic's post

wrote in message
oups.com...
Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------

yes, and in the ABX test, there is not even the option to
respond that it sounds the same, if that is what one perceives.
It forces the respondent to lie, and then it adds the lies with
the responses based upon perceptions of differences.



A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
questionable to the reputable. Whenever stumped for argument ABX
becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
low cunning to use this dodge).
DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
spread worldwide from there.
The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
without DBT.
That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data. Using DBT
researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
inevitable placebo effect/bias.


Take antihystamines for example. Many are approved as safe and
effective, partly based upon DBT studies. Yet, one
particular formula might work better for one person, and another
formula better for another person.
I respond to Allegra, Claritin does absolutely
nothing for me. That is because I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

wrote



Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------


Audio ABX/DBT is a bundle of contradiction. Proponents of this
test use this experiment to antagonize discriminating audiophiles
because they have no money.

Clyde Slick wrote:

I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)

"EddieM" wrote in message
. net...
wrote



Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.
Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.
ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them. It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.
On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.
Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)
It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.
Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.
------------------------------------


Audio ABX/DBT is a bundle of contradiction. Proponents of this
test use this experiment to antagonize discriminating audiophiles
because they have no money.

or brains.

wrote
Clyde Slick wrote:




I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)



Arny Krueger's house!

http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM


Putting his soundcards to good use !

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:

I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)


.....not that there's anything wrong with that.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.

ABX is another approved and relaible protocol for double blind tests.

Medical research DBTs rely on objective data for confirmation. In ABX
all one has is the listener's impression.

That's all you have in any listening comparison.


ABX procedure still lacks proper research validation and there are
grounds for suspicion that instead of "revealing subtle
differences" it obliterates them.

You keep saying that and the researchers keep ignoring you and using ABX and
AC/HR.

It does not qualify as the opposite
of sighted listening.

Let's see, we have sighted where one can see the DIT and we have blind,
where you can't. In an ABX test, one can't see the DUT, so yes it is the
opposite of sighted.

On the other hand wisely used single or where possible double blind
listening can be a valuable addition to sighted listening when in doubt
about preference.

Use whatever you wish for preference, but if there's no difference where
does preference come from?

ABX is for determining difference, not preference. Why do you insist on
implying that ABX has anything to do with preference? Can't make your case
without lying?

Contrary to ABX procedure one concentrates on "Do I like it
better?" not "Is it different?" (A much more confusing and less
interesting question to answer.)

First it's important to determine if there are any real differences to
prefer.

It is important to keep in mind that your results are an opinion only.
Blind or not it is YOU listening and nobody else.

But when the results are the same for everybody taking the ABX test, one
begins to see a pattern.

Also keep in mind that if today you hear no difference experience may
change your perceptions in the future, That is what training is all
about
What follows is lengthy background, You may stop right here.


And miss your next batch of misditrection and bull****? Never.
------------------------------------

A persistent confusion between the two is propagated in the audio
forums. Sometimes from ignorance sometimes deliberately to attach the
questionable to the reputable.

Oh goodie, you're confessing.

Whenever stumped for argument ABX
becomes just plain old "DBT" (Even slight forger NYOB has enough
low cunning to use this dodge).

Lie number 1.

DBTs were first developed in the forties of the last century by the
Medical Research Ccil of the U.K. by its statistics division headed by
statistician Bradford Hill and physician Richard Doll Dbts soon
became the gold standard of medical research in Great Britain and
spread worldwide from there.
The progress in medical therapeutics since those years is inconceivable
without DBT.
That it WORKS is confirmable by the objective data.

As is ABX for audio as well as ABC/HR.

Using DBT
researching physician does not know if he is giving an inert placebo or
the "real" drug-nor does the patient)
What decides if it is effective or not is not the patient or doctor's
impression but improved function and better survival statistics. If
before penicillin 100% died of bacterial endocarditis and since only
50% or less no room for controversy is left. Patients' opinion if
unsupported by objective data is only interesting as the evidence of
inevitable placebo effect/bias. (For obvious reasons treatment of
psyche is a special case but even there the evidence of reintegration
into society and adequate functioning counts more than bare opinion).
The place of DBT in research in other sciences is also ensured.
Two decades later Arny Krueger ( alone or with others? Some controversy
there of no interest here) proposed ABX as his modification of DBT
suitable for researching differences between audio components. The
method involves playing a snippet A, then a snippet B, then a snippet
X. The listeners are asked to decide if X is more like A or more like
B.
There is no possible objective confirmation- just slashes in the
appropriate square on the paper. The resemblance to research DBT is
only that in both blinding is used. Nothing else.

Enough to insure that bias is removed and only the listeners ears are relied
upon for data.

Everything about ABX was and remains undefined and controversial:

Lie number 2.

How
do you select a representative listener sample?: sex, age, education,
exposure- to what kind of music (hip hop or chamber?), occupation
(salesmen, disk jockeys, audio engineers, musicians?), required number
of panelists for statistical significance. The basic research is
missing.


Because you haven't looked.

Lie number 3.

What about implementation? In four decades of its existence the very
vocal ABX supporters published not one single report of successful
differentiation between any audio components, when reproducing music.

Lie number 4.

By now there should be dozens of them acceptable to a professional or
at least popular Audio journal. There are none.

Lie number 5.

Such as have been
published had "No difference" outcome
There is no evidence that ABX WORKS to differentiate audio
components' musical reproduction ability.

Lie number 6.

Not even gross let alone
"subtle".

Lie number 7. Will he make it to an even dozen?

It may or may not have applications in psychometric research in things
such as phase differences, codecs and so on.

Since much of that research relies on ABX, it seems safe to say it does have
application there.

I know nothing about that
DBT is another thing entirely. To be against DBTs in research is to be
against motherhood. In an audio DBT you can ask: "Which one do you
like better?" a simple question which is much more likely to give a
consistent answer than comparing A then B with X.

Depends on whether or not levels were matched and there are actual
differences to prefer.


Ludovic Mirabel M.D.,M.R.C.P.(Ed),FRCP(C)
I apologise for listing degrees in an audio posting. It is only to
establish credibility.

Yet, yo have none by virtue of the fact that you keep lying and clearly
don't intend to stop, even though you've been shown many times that you have
made errors. Now they are no longer considered errors, they are just lies
since you know that you are wrong.

While preparing for my postgrad. specialty
degrees I worked full-time in the Med.Res.Ccil in London at the
exciting time when DBTs were being developed. That is perhaps why I
care about their good name.

But not your own.

"EddieM" wrote in message
et
wrote
Clyde Slick wrote:




I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)



Arny Krueger's house!

http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM

Not at all. Is that ugly or what?

Since you seem to know about this odd UL Eddie, it must be
your house.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:

I am unique, and not exacly like
any other individual.

We already knew that, Art. :-)


....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except for the facts of the matter. :-(

wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

Who's been flushing Arnii's toilet?

....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except for the feces on my plate. :-(

.... and the baby 'borg said, "This turd is ju-u-u-u-st right! Yum!"




..
..
..

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.
By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.
If this sounds like a personal attack it is so intended. I can not
think of a serious answer to Mc Kelvy's semiliterate noises. Surely
you're not intending to confirm that "By his friends you'll know
him".
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to cause
me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.


If this sounds like a personal attack it is so intended. I can not
think of a serious answer to Mc Kelvy's semiliterate noises. Surely
you're not intending to confirm that "By his friends you'll know
him".


That works both ways, you twit.

wrote in message
nk.net...



Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.



It had better be a better explanation than Creationsism

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Summary:
DBT and ABX have blinding in common. And there the resemblance ends.

ABX is another approved and relaible protocol for double blind tests.

All experience with respect to high end hifi tests shows CONCLUSIVELY that
ABX reduces sensitivity to audible differences.
Therefore, ABX=NFG

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



Who's been flushing Arnii's toilet?

....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Except for the feces on my plate. :-(

... and the baby 'borg said, "This turd is ju-u-u-u-st right! Yum!"

Fecal obsession of Middius noted again.

Never accept an invitation to George's house for a meal.

wrote in message
nk.net...



Never accept an invitation to George's house for a meal.


George, don't you have any spare fireflies?

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:32:10 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.

It's just that She thinks it's just a "boy-toy" thing.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first experimental
proof of ABX validity ever.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.

The Bug Eater reminisces none too fondly.

If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Except for all those JAES articles.

Is it true you canceled your subscription because you had to feed your
cricket habit?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
Which have nothing to do with testing fine hifi equipment.
It's a bad sign for ABX that it's being flogged by rao's village idiot and
bug eater, Mikey McKelviphbian

wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
uncover audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
signals can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT
will not uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent
amplifiers sound the same, what is meant is that the differences between
audible outputs is small enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished
by ear. What it does NOT mean is that the signals are identical, or that
you will be equally happy with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
proven by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to
show up. If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how
familiar they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm
afraid I'll have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with
one than the other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root of the matter.
However, there is one further test, the only one that would satisfy me. Put
the DUTs in equal size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No fancy testing
gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable containers.

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

And answer as above

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"


Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music. I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.
Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Now NYOB:
Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.
Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.
I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
..
2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

..3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Now NYOB:
Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.

Coming from a bonfide shameless liar and distorted like you, I'm all
a-flutter. :-)


Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.

I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
.
Youmean you haven't read any of them?

2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?


.3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

And answer as above

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will
not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound
the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is
small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid
I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than
the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"


Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.

Which is part of the reason for proper training of listeners.


Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

Which is why ABX is not used for speaker comparisons other than for things
like xover changes within a given speaker system.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root
of the matter. However, there is one further test, the
only one that would satisfy me. Put the DUTs in equal
size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No
fancy testing gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable
containers.

This has been done. Tests done this way were not found to be
more sensitive than short-term tests.

wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at
Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.


Those people are not doing this to decide what component to purchase
for their hime (hive/home) system.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Mickey cries in the darkness.

ABX

Nearer my god to thee....

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I
too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.


By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with
his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you
with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.


Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Now NYOB:
Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.

Coming from a bonfide shameless liar and distorted like you, I'm all
a-flutter. :-)


Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.

I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
.
Youmean you haven't read any of them?

2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

There are plenty of refernces to ABX though, have you read any of them?


.3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.

So you admit you've not read any of them.

Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel

I called you a ****bag? I don't think so.
The one who needs pity is you with your crusade against an accepted and
widely used protocl that for some reason you refuse to accept and that you
refuse to do your own research on and offer up an alternative or show some
validity to whatever method you use for evaluating audio equipment.

Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

These are also included in the ABX bibliography.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictably "slight forger" plumps for the option b (see my text
predicting his choices)
" Perhaps you should try Audio ABX+research, in your search engine
and see
how many articles from JAES you get.

Maybe stuff like Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p. 1038
(Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p. 116-128,
(March 1997)

I should not and I will not. Contrariwise to you Prof.
McKelvy I'm not in esoteric researchn "resonances" or anything else.
I am interested in selecting audio components for their fidelity to my
image of the live musical performance. and the only question I have is:
is ABX any use in that task.
It is different for researchers like you Prof. No wonder you
publish your findings in this noted research journal RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I've done enough wild goose chases on your web-sourced , unread by
you fool references. I wonder if these two as much as mention ABX as
Olive's research method for this task. Quote?

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow