I'm reopening this topic because Google relegated it already to "older
topics". Please refer to " ScottW.- selected writings" for preceding
messages

First of all I want to welcome a completely different debating tone.
I sincerely hope that what we started will take the RAO back to
civility and serious discussion.
wrote:
Time to eat humble pie. Yes, you were right and I was way out in the
left field.. Your quote shows that Greenhill DID mention O.16db
volume difference between the zipcord and the Monster in favour of
Monster. I did not copy and did not remember that paragraph
General comment. I do not lie in a discussion. Never.

ScottW:
OK, I'll accept that. Note that I never took to calling you a liar
upon first disagreement.
Only after we went over the issue (to the best of our ability on
usenet)
and then you subsequently repeated what I perceive to be in error.
This apparent willing and with knowledge repeat of an error seems to be

a lie to me. However, based upon your statement here I accept that
that is not your intent and will refrain from further characterizing
your behavior as such.

Elmir2M:
In this very spirit a nonconfrontational statement.: I do not recall
your ever giving this exact quote before. I searched now and still
couldn't find it. Perhaps I missed and am still missing it. I recall
your mentioning .16 and .04db difference between Greenhill cables. I
dismissed it as hair splitting. It never occurred to me -and I still
find it incomprehensible that anyone who wants to be taken seriously
(like Greenhill) would ever call for such a "difference" to explain an
inconvenient result in his research. But, yes, he did so

ScottW:
...Perhaps he felt there was nothing to gain as none could tell the
difference
with music...recall this difference was only distinguishable with pink
noise.
We can only speculate.

Elmir2M: As for me I would then add : even when (and inspite of)
ABXing.

ScottW: I don't think ABX has to desensitize listeners if you let them
control
the source.
Long switch, short switch... it should be left to the subject.
Granted trials may take a very long time but that doesn't invalidate
the entire
protocol.
Personally, I don't like the group trials. I feel that situation is
certainly not near as sensitive as possible due noise and less than
optimal positions etc.

Elmir2m: Perhaps it does not, perhaps it does. For me, having grown up
mentally in the cradle of experimental research - experiment and
experiment only is the royal way to validating a theory. Even
Einstein's let alone Krueger's.{{ And the only reason for my mentioning
ABX in connection with Olive's loudspeaker test was to underline once
more that no validation of ABX for AUDiO COMPONENT COMPARISON exists. I
never said that Olive's protocol proves or disproves anything - it just
is a fact.to add to other such facts. }}
Psychometric research other than into component comparisons I know
nothing about and care less.
Next comes my BELIEF (not proven but where there is no valid evidence
to begin with anyone is free to believe whatever he wants). ABX fogs up
brains.

)

Elmir2M : But your own witness, the Auto Review discussion does not
help
Greenhill's case one little bit. These are their opinions.

Quotes from Audio Review follow:
"1)lowest audible volume change .1 db, who says?
I have seen some people claim to be able to hear a 0.25dB difference
but I can't recall anyone doing better than a 0.5dB difference at our
audio club when we were experimenting with volume matching for ABX
tests. Pure sine wave test tones and quick switching using an ABX
switchbox make it easier to hear SPL differences ... and I believe
that's how the +/- 0.1dB ABX volume-matching standard was developed
(seems like overkill, IMHO, for A/B comparisons listening to real
music, rather than test tones)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon my observations, some folks CAN distinguish between 1/4 dB
level differences. The results are much less reliable below 1/4 dB, but
that's not to say that there may not be other psychological preferences
resulting from smaller differences, even if not identifiable as volume
differences to the people involved. But it varies by listener.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The test results we saw were that SOME folks could reliably
distinguish a 1/4 dB difference. Others couldn't. Nobody could reliably
distinguish 1/10 dB difference, but some still thought they could
discern a difference"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------------------------------
They seem to be speaking loud and clear . Or am I missing something
again?

ScottW. I simply use this interesting discussion to point out the limit
of
human hearing
appears to be somewhere between 1/10 and 1/4 dB which is exactly where
the monster/zip cord difference lies. Note also this discussion used
tones while Greenhill used pink noise. I think pink noise is more
revealing
than tones...but I never tried to test it.
Of course pink noise makes everything simpler. But why should an audio
group care about the "limits of human hearing" and "pink noise"?

Elmir2M: If your Audio Review is right - and I have no doubt that they
are- what
is the point of your raising the whole argument?. Who cares whether a
few can hear 0,16 db difference only when pink noises are played at
them (but not with music), or not..
The argument was whether ABXing components gives significant results or
concludes uniformly that they all sound the same. Even within the
limits of this particular test a few did outstandingly well and a few
outstandingly badly.
Most fell in between as per usual.
The listener sample was small and unrepresentative.
The question remains: Does ABX "prove" anything or does it blunt
perception?

ScottW: Yes that question still remains and neither Greenhill nor Olive

resolve that question.
Elmir2m: You choose to devote your time to proving that I make
mistakes of no
significance whatsoever for the discussion.

Scottw:Well, that is certainly debateable. I find your mistakes quite
significant
if you intend to show via Greenhill or Olive that ABX is useless.

Elmir2M: How is "ignoring a difference of .16db" significant to my
"showing that ABX is useless".OK. I acknowledged my mistake. In my
opinion Abx is still as useless as it was before I did. It does not
matter either way in resolving the controversy.
I originally quoted Greenhill not for evidence that ABX is useless for
comparing audio components but for Greenhill's comment that he
uncovered one "golden ear". The other reason was to point out that
ALL reported ABX component tests on anything at all turned out
negative. According to their moderators- "they all sound the same" to
majority.. At least those printed in the pop audio mags- none made the
professional journals (coded or uncoded component names-pace Mr.
Krueger). In other words- according to the moderators- the "test" was
never shown to be any good for uncovering differences between anything
and anything else.
Why? Another BELIEF-in a world of zillions of different fingerprints
and brains how would anyone go to try and get a representative panel?
A pipe-dream. We're left with what Tom,Dich and Janine hear.
I wonder if my mistakes are
as intensely interesting to others as they seem to be to you?.
Ludovic Mirabel
I'll deal with Olive's paper tomorrow.

I look forward to it.
ScottW.

Later. I had enough for the time being. The anaemic Vancouver sun is
out for once.
I hope you can bear the suspense.

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

How did McKelvy come into it:
It is long and unsavoury story of limited interest but you touched on
it saying:
"If you really looked at history you would see the whole mess came
up when Mike tried to reference Olive as a source for a positive
outcome DBT in an ABX discussion. deLudo then ran with it
as Olive showing the flaws of ABX by choosing not to use it".

It was a little more complicated than that:
On 8.2.2004 I posted a review of Olive's paper in RAHE.
Excerpts:
"For a change from the long lists of irrelevancies I'll present
a series of papers on comparing loudspeakers originating from the S.
Olive, Floyd Toole stable at the Harman-Kardon. (Both Canucks- of
course-, both at one time researchers at the National Research Ccil in
Ottawa)
I got the reprints by Mr. S. Olive's courtesy.
The latest summary is by S. Olive in JAES, vol.51,
No. 9 , Â'03, p.806-825.
..
"The performance (defined as "discrimination and consistency"
L.M.) of the trained panel is significantly
better.... three times better than the best group of audio retailers,
five times better than the reviewers and 27 times better than
students."
5) The
preferences- ( Olive gives separate, distinct tables L.M.) matched the
loudspeaker
frequency measurements in an anechoic chamber. The identities of the
speakers are not given but the worst rating was given to a hybrid
electrostat with rapid frequency drop of below 40 Hz.. and ragged
midrange. Next worst was a speaker with slow drop off below 80Hz.
I have these comments:. It would appear
that under ideal conditions with an audience of audio retailers.
(though not trained but more exposed to variety of audio sources than
an average audiophile they performed much better than the students). ,
with a carefully selected monophonic program and a simplified double
blind (not ABX) protocol there still remain large differences in
*performance* between groups AND I think one can extrapolate safely
even
more so between individuals.
At that the components compared were the
loudspeakers that we all agree are the easiest components to identify.
I do not know which electrostat was used- though I can guess hearing
that it was a...... hybrid- and if so I loathed it when I heard it
*sighted*. ( so much for bias- I own ELS) Mr. Olive makes a forceful
case
for measurements.
I do not think that I'm making an out of
the way statement when I say that for an average untrained audiophile
to attempt ABX in HIS room with HIS equipment chain is a road to
cutting himself off from enlarging his audio horizon.
Whatever he tries to compare (other than
grossly different components) he is most likely to come up with "It
all sounds the same" verdict.. And if the components ARE grossly
different what's there to be gained from ABXing?. For most of us the
chances of missing differences are higher, not lower.
It would of course be of great interest if you'd honour
the RAHE with a message.
Thank you again for the fascinating reprints.
Regards, Ludovic Mirabel

I sent an email to Mr. Olive with a copy of my posting:
Sean Olive voiced no objections but a few months later sent me several
reprints with a flattering comment.
I made several subsequent flattering references to Olive's paper in RAO
discussions.
S
ACT 2
This message appears in RAO under Mc Kelvy's signatu
" GUESS WHAT SEAN OLIVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT lUDOVIC'S REMARKS"
McKelvy sent S.Olive something "said" by a fictitious "this preson"
(sic) .He ascribed to this preson views exactly opposite to mine.
The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests
on
speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better
quality
speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind
And next after getting S. Olive's indignant rebuttal of }that preson's"
views Mc Kelvy in his RAO posting changed "this preson's" name to
"Ludovic".
Olive reacted as could be expected to the idotic "views" of McKelvy's
imaginary creation. He got sick of it all and I lost a valued contact.
Mc Kelvy said in self defencew that he just "slightly paraphrased" my
views.
This is the story of the forger McKelvy, Sean Olive "this preson" and
"slight paraphrase"
Ludovic Mirabel

================================================== =======
wrote:
I'm reopening this topic because Google relegated it already to "older
topics". Please refer to " ScottW.- selected writings" for preceding
messages

First of all I want to welcome a completely different debating tone.
I sincerely hope that what we started will take the RAO back to
civility and serious discussion.
wrote:
Time to eat humble pie. Yes, you were right and I was way out in the
left field.. Your quote shows that Greenhill DID mention O.16db
volume difference between the zipcord and the Monster in favour of
Monster. I did not copy and did not remember that paragraph
General comment. I do not lie in a discussion. Never.

ScottW:
OK, I'll accept that. Note that I never took to calling you a liar
upon first disagreement.
Only after we went over the issue (to the best of our ability on
usenet)
and then you subsequently repeated what I perceive to be in error.
This apparent willing and with knowledge repeat of an error seems to be

a lie to me. However, based upon your statement here I accept that
that is not your intent and will refrain from further characterizing
your behavior as such.

Elmir2M:
In this very spirit a nonconfrontational statement.: I do not recall
your ever giving this exact quote before. I searched now and still
couldn't find it. Perhaps I missed and am still missing it. I recall
your mentioning .16 and .04db difference between Greenhill cables. I
dismissed it as hair splitting. It never occurred to me -and I still
find it incomprehensible that anyone who wants to be taken seriously
(like Greenhill) would ever call for such a "difference" to explain an
inconvenient result in his research. But, yes, he did so

ScottW:
..Perhaps he felt there was nothing to gain as none could tell the
difference
with music...recall this difference was only distinguishable with pink
noise.
We can only speculate.

Elmir2M: As for me I would then add : even when (and inspite of)
ABXing.

ScottW: I don't think ABX has to desensitize listeners if you let them
control
the source.
Long switch, short switch... it should be left to the subject.
Granted trials may take a very long time but that doesn't invalidate
the entire
protocol.
Personally, I don't like the group trials. I feel that situation is
certainly not near as sensitive as possible due noise and less than
optimal positions etc.

Elmir2m: Perhaps it does not, perhaps it does. For me, having grown up
mentally in the cradle of experimental research - experiment and
experiment only is the royal way to validating a theory. Even
Einstein's let alone Krueger's.{{ And the only reason for my mentioning
ABX in connection with Olive's loudspeaker test was to underline once
more that no validation of ABX for AUDiO COMPONENT COMPARISON exists. I
never said that Olive's protocol proves or disproves anything - it just
is a fact.to add to other such facts. }}
Psychometric research other than into component comparisons I know
nothing about and care less.
Next comes my BELIEF (not proven but where there is no valid evidence
to begin with anyone is free to believe whatever he wants). ABX fogs up
brains.

)

Elmir2M : But your own witness, the Auto Review discussion does not
help
Greenhill's case one little bit. These are their opinions.

Quotes from Audio Review follow:
"1)lowest audible volume change .1 db, who says?
I have seen some people claim to be able to hear a 0.25dB difference
but I can't recall anyone doing better than a 0.5dB difference at our
audio club when we were experimenting with volume matching for ABX
tests. Pure sine wave test tones and quick switching using an ABX
switchbox make it easier to hear SPL differences ... and I believe
that's how the +/- 0.1dB ABX volume-matching standard was developed
(seems like overkill, IMHO, for A/B comparisons listening to real
music, rather than test tones)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon my observations, some folks CAN distinguish between 1/4 dB
level differences. The results are much less reliable below 1/4 dB, but
that's not to say that there may not be other psychological preferences
resulting from smaller differences, even if not identifiable as volume
differences to the people involved. But it varies by listener.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The test results we saw were that SOME folks could reliably
distinguish a 1/4 dB difference. Others couldn't. Nobody could reliably
distinguish 1/10 dB difference, but some still thought they could
discern a difference"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------------------------------
They seem to be speaking loud and clear . Or am I missing something
again?

ScottW. I simply use this interesting discussion to point out the limit
of
human hearing
appears to be somewhere between 1/10 and 1/4 dB which is exactly where
the monster/zip cord difference lies. Note also this discussion used
tones while Greenhill used pink noise. I think pink noise is more
revealing
than tones...but I never tried to test it.
Of course pink noise makes everything simpler. But why should an audio
group care about the "limits of human hearing" and "pink noise"?

Elmir2M: If your Audio Review is right - and I have no doubt that they
are- what
is the point of your raising the whole argument?. Who cares whether a
few can hear 0,16 db difference only when pink noises are played at
them (but not with music), or not..
The argument was whether ABXing components gives significant results or
concludes uniformly that they all sound the same. Even within the
limits of this particular test a few did outstandingly well and a few
outstandingly badly.
Most fell in between as per usual.
The listener sample was small and unrepresentative.
The question remains: Does ABX "prove" anything or does it blunt
perception?

ScottW: Yes that question still remains and neither Greenhill nor Olive

resolve that question.
Elmir2m: You choose to devote your time to proving that I make
mistakes of no
significance whatsoever for the discussion.

Scottw:Well, that is certainly debateable. I find your mistakes quite
significant
if you intend to show via Greenhill or Olive that ABX is useless.

Elmir2M: How is "ignoring a difference of .16db" significant to my
"showing that ABX is useless".OK. I acknowledged my mistake. In my
opinion Abx is still as useless as it was before I did. It does not
matter either way in resolving the controversy.
I originally quoted Greenhill not for evidence that ABX is useless for
comparing audio components but for Greenhill's comment that he
uncovered one "golden ear". The other reason was to point out that
ALL reported ABX component tests on anything at all turned out
negative. According to their moderators- "they all sound the same" to
majority.. At least those printed in the pop audio mags- none made the
professional journals (coded or uncoded component names-pace Mr.
Krueger). In other words- according to the moderators- the "test" was
never shown to be any good for uncovering differences between anything
and anything else.
Why? Another BELIEF-in a world of zillions of different fingerprints
and brains how would anyone go to try and get a representative panel?
A pipe-dream. We're left with what Tom,Dich and Janine hear.
I wonder if my mistakes are
as intensely interesting to others as they seem to be to you?.
Ludovic Mirabel
I'll deal with Olive's paper tomorrow.

I look forward to it.
ScottW.

Later. I had enough for the time being. The anaemic Vancouver sun is
out for once.
I hope you can bear the suspense.
------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
ups.com

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

Think of a broken record.

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate
differentiating audio
components.

*click*

1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for
uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,(
including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was
accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional
journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference"
None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.

*click*

2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now
40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for
COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its
uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?

*click*

3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question


*click*



3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is
immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want
to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse
be my guest.


*click*

And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test"
which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece
of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more
like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all
sound the same"
by the majority.


*click*



4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I
"misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very
clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and
we'll go from
there..


*click*



How did McKelvy come into it:
It is long and unsavoury story of limited interest but
you touched on
it saying:
"If you really looked at history you would see the
whole mess came
up when Mike tried to reference Olive as a source for a
positive outcome DBT in an ABX discussion. deLudo then
ran with it
as Olive showing the flaws of ABX by choosing not to
use it".


*click*



It was a little more complicated than that:
On 8.2.2004 I posted a review of Olive's paper in RAHE.
Excerpts:
"For a change from the long lists of irrelevancies
I'll present
a series of papers on comparing loudspeakers originating
from the S.
Olive, Floyd Toole stable at the Harman-Kardon. (Both
Canucks- of
course-, both at one time researchers at the National
Research Ccil in
Ottawa)
I got the reprints by Mr. S. Olive's
courtesy.
The latest summary is by S. Olive in
JAES, vol.51,
No. 9 , Â'03, p.806-825.


*click*



..
"The performance (defined as "discrimination and
consistency"
L.M.) of the trained panel is significantly
better.... three times better than the best group of
audio retailers,
five times better than the reviewers and 27 times better
than
students."


*click*


5)
The
preferences- ( Olive gives separate, distinct tables
L.M.) matched the
loudspeaker
frequency measurements in an anechoic chamber. The
identities of the
speakers are not given but the worst rating was given to
a hybrid
electrostat with rapid frequency drop of below 40 Hz..
and ragged
midrange. Next worst was a speaker with slow drop off
below 80Hz.


*click*



I have these comments:. It
would appear
that under ideal conditions with an audience of audio
retailers.
(though not trained but more exposed to variety of audio
sources than
an average audiophile they performed much better than the
students). ,
with a carefully selected monophonic program and a
simplified double
blind (not ABX) protocol there still remain large
differences in
*performance* between groups AND I think one can
extrapolate safely
even
more so between individuals.
At that the components
compared were the
loudspeakers that we all agree are the easiest components
to identify.


*click*



I do not know which electrostat was used- though I can
guess hearing
that it was a...... hybrid- and if so I loathed it when I
heard it
*sighted*. ( so much for bias- I own ELS) Mr. Olive
makes a forceful
case
for measurements.


*click*



I do not think that I'm
making an out of
the way statement when I say that for an average
untrained audiophile
to attempt ABX in HIS room with HIS equipment chain is a
road to
cutting himself off from enlarging his audio horizon.
Whatever he tries to
compare (other than
grossly different components) he is most likely to come
up with "It
all sounds the same" verdict.. And if the components ARE
grossly
different what's there to be gained from ABXing?. For
most of us the
chances of missing differences are higher, not lower.



*click*



It would of course be of great interest if
you'd honour
the RAHE with a message.
Thank you again for the fascinating
reprints.
Regards, Ludovic Mirabel


*click*



I sent an email to Mr. Olive with a copy of my posting:
Sean Olive voiced no objections but a few months later
sent me several
reprints with a flattering comment.


*click*



I made several subsequent flattering references to
Olive's paper in RAO
discussions.
S
ACT 2
This message appears in RAO under Mc Kelvy's
signatu
" GUESS WHAT SEAN OLIVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT lUDOVIC'S
REMARKS"
McKelvy sent S.Olive something "said" by a fictitious
"this preson"
(sic) .He ascribed to this preson views exactly opposite
to mine.


*click*



The preson making the above statement also concludes
that your tests
on
speakers revealed that people were not able to
distinguish better
quality
speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind
And next after getting S. Olive's indignant rebuttal of
}that preson's"
views Mc Kelvy in his RAO posting changed "this
preson's" name to
"Ludovic".


*click*



Olive reacted as could be expected to the idotic "views"
of McKelvy's
imaginary creation. He got sick of it all and I lost a
valued contact.
Mc Kelvy said in self defencew that he just "slightly
paraphrased" my
views.
This is the story of the forger McKelvy, Sean Olive "this
preson" and
"slight paraphrase"
Ludovic Mirabel


*click*



================================================== =======
wrote:
I'm reopening this topic because Google relegated it
already to "older topics". Please refer to " ScottW.-
selected writings" for preceding messages

First of all I want to welcome a completely different
debating tone.
I sincerely hope that what we started will take the RAO
back to civility and serious discussion.
wrote:
Time to eat humble pie. Yes, you were right and I was
way out in the left field.. Your quote shows that
Greenhill DID mention O.16db
volume difference between the zipcord and the Monster
in favour of Monster. I did not copy and did not
remember that paragraph
General comment. I do not lie in a discussion. Never.


*click*



ScottW:
OK, I'll accept that. Note that I never took to calling
you a liar upon first disagreement.
Only after we went over the issue (to the best of our
ability on usenet)
and then you subsequently repeated what I perceive to be
in error. This apparent willing and with knowledge
repeat of an error seems to be
a lie to me. However, based upon your statement here I
accept that that is not your intent and will refrain
from further characterizing your behavior as such.


*click*



Elmir2M:
In this very spirit a nonconfrontational statement.: I
do not recall your ever giving this exact quote before.
I searched now and still couldn't find it. Perhaps I
missed and am still missing it. I recall your
mentioning .16 and .04db difference between Greenhill
cables. I dismissed it as hair splitting. It never
occurred to me -and I still find it incomprehensible
that anyone who wants to be taken seriously (like
Greenhill) would ever call for such a "difference" to
explain an inconvenient result in his research. But,
yes, he did so



*click*



ScottW:
..Perhaps he felt there was nothing to gain as none
could tell the difference
with music...recall this difference was only
distinguishable with pink noise.
We can only speculate.


*click*



Elmir2M: As for me I would then add : even when (and
inspite of) ABXing.

ScottW: I don't think ABX has to desensitize listeners
if you let them control
the source.
Long switch, short switch... it should be left to the
subject.
Granted trials may take a very long time but that
doesn't invalidate the entire
protocol.
Personally, I don't like the group trials. I feel that
situation is certainly not near as sensitive as possible
due noise and less than optimal positions etc.


*click*



Elmir2m: Perhaps it does not, perhaps it does. For me,
having grown up mentally in the cradle of experimental
research - experiment and experiment only is the royal
way to validating a theory. Even Einstein's let alone
Krueger's.{{ And the only reason for my mentioning ABX
in connection with Olive's loudspeaker test was to
underline once more that no validation of ABX for AUDiO
COMPONENT COMPARISON exists. I never said that Olive's
protocol proves or disproves anything - it just is a
fact.to add to other such facts. }}
Psychometric research other than into component
comparisons I know nothing about and care less.
Next comes my BELIEF (not proven but where there is no
valid evidence to begin with anyone is free to believe
whatever he wants). ABX fogs up brains.

)


*click*



Elmir2M : But your own witness, the Auto Review
discussion does not help
Greenhill's case one little bit. These are their
opinions.


*click*



Quotes from Audio Review follow:
"1)lowest audible volume change .1 db, who says?
I have seen some people claim to be able to hear a
0.25dB difference but I can't recall anyone doing
better than a 0.5dB difference at our audio club when
we were experimenting with volume matching for ABX
tests. Pure sine wave test tones and quick switching
using an ABX switchbox make it easier to hear SPL
differences ... and I believe that's how the +/- 0.1dB
ABX volume-matching standard was developed (seems like
overkill, IMHO, for A/B comparisons listening to real
music, rather than test tones)."


*click*



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon my observations, some folks CAN distinguish
between 1/4 dB level differences. The results are much
less reliable below 1/4 dB, but that's not to say that
there may not be other psychological preferences
resulting from smaller differences, even if not
identifiable as volume differences to the people
involved. But it varies by listener.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The test results we saw were that SOME folks could
reliably distinguish a 1/4 dB difference. Others
couldn't. Nobody could reliably distinguish 1/10 dB
difference, but some still thought they could discern a
difference"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------------------------------
They seem to be speaking loud and clear . Or am I
missing something again?


*click*



ScottW. I simply use this interesting discussion to
point out the limit of
human hearing
appears to be somewhere between 1/10 and 1/4 dB which is
exactly where the monster/zip cord difference lies. Note
also this discussion used tones while Greenhill used
pink noise. I think pink noise is more revealing
than tones...but I never tried to test it.
Of course pink noise makes everything simpler. But why
should an audio group care about the "limits of human
hearing" and "pink noise"?


*click*



Elmir2M: If your Audio Review is right - and I have no
doubt that they are- what
is the point of your raising the whole argument?. Who
cares whether a few can hear 0,16 db difference only
when pink noises are played at them (but not with
music), or not..
The argument was whether ABXing components gives
significant results or concludes uniformly that they
all sound the same. Even within the limits of this
particular test a few did outstandingly well and a few
outstandingly badly.
Most fell in between as per usual.
The listener sample was small and unrepresentative.
The question remains: Does ABX "prove" anything or does
it blunt perception?


*click*



ScottW: Yes that question still remains and neither
Greenhill nor Olive
resolve that question.



*click*


Elmir2m: You choose to devote your time to proving
that I make mistakes of no
significance whatsoever for the discussion.


*click*



Scottw:Well, that is certainly debateable. I find your
mistakes quite significant
if you intend to show via Greenhill or Olive that ABX is
useless.


*click*



Elmir2M: How is "ignoring a difference of .16db"
significant to my "showing that ABX is useless".OK. I
acknowledged my mistake. In my opinion Abx is still as
useless as it was before I did. It does not matter
either way in resolving the controversy. I originally
quoted Greenhill not for evidence that ABX is useless
for comparing audio components but for Greenhill's
comment that he uncovered one "golden ear". The
other reason was to point out that ALL reported ABX
component tests on anything at all turned out negative.
According to their moderators- "they all sound the same"
to majority.. At least those printed in the pop audio
mags- none made the professional journals (coded or
uncoded component names-pace Mr. Krueger). In other
words- according to the moderators- the "test" was
never shown to be any good for uncovering differences
between anything and anything else. Why? Another
BELIEF-in a world of zillions of different fingerprints
and brains how would anyone go to try and get a
representative panel? A pipe-dream. We're left with what
Tom,Dich and Janine hear. I wonder if my mistakes are
as intensely interesting to others as they seem to be
to you?.


*click*


Ludovic Mirabel
I'll deal with Olive's paper tomorrow.

I look forward to it.
ScottW.

Later. I had enough for the time being. The anaemic
Vancouver sun is out for once.
I hope you can bear the suspense.
------------------------------------------------------


*click*




*click*




*click*

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

Think of a broken record.

*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*



Sounds more like Howard's ABX box.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

Think of a broken record.

*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*



Sounds more like Howard's ABX box.


or the remote control of his wrecking ball.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Or like Arny's carefully (3 days) planned response to Paul Packer's "
Arny's wit and wisdom" thread; "See, I can be life and soul..."
Give him time and he will become RAO's chief comedian.
Ludovic Mirabel

------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Slick wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

Think of a broken record.

*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*



Sounds more like Howard's ABX box.


or the remote control of his wrecking ball.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Or like Arny's carefully (3 days) planned response to Paul Packer's "
Arny's wit and wisdom" thread; "See, I can be life and soul..."
Give him time and he will become RAO's chief comedian.
Ludovic Mirabel

------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Slick wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

Reply to ScottW. PART 2

Think of a broken record.

*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*


*click*



Sounds more like Howard's ABX box.


or the remote control of his wrecking ball.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW

------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

My answer is :
) Measurements, if of well- established value, such as frequency
charting
used by Olive
are obviously important. Atkinson does some other measurement that I'm
not
competent to pronounce on.
2) Beyond that everyone is on his own. Just as our DNA's differ so do
our
perceptions. A car music fan may consider virtuoso violin a squeak and
I may
cover my ears when at a stop sign I'm blasted by boom boom from the
other lane.
3) It is a lucky event when mesurements and preferences of the majority
coincide
as in Olive's loudspeaker tests
But even there there were up to 27/1 differences in "consistency"
between
various groups of listeners.
What I'm driving at is that essentially there ain't no test.
Opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes yes. A"test" for them is a
pipe dream
Science at this stage
of its progress (and maybe never) an summarise how your,
mine and Jenn's grey matter process the information.
Even our decisions whose opinion to trust depend on instinctual inborn
or acquired neuronal affinities. Eg. in the newsgroups I'll trust Harry
Lavo's or
Jenn's preferences because they are more likely to be same as mine.
I won't say whose choices I wouldn't trust-,I'm trying hard to be
non-controversial
But I'll say that bestsellers are no guides to me. In lterature, in
music nd so on.
In brief my answer is: When it comes o preferences ie. aesthetic
choices
Any " test" tests the guy/girl performing it.
Ludovic Mirabel.

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW

------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

My answer is :
) Measurements, if of well- established value, such as frequency
charting
used by Olive
are obviously important. Atkinson does some other measurement that I'm
not
competent to pronounce on.
2) Beyond that everyone is on his own. Just as our DNA's differ so do
our
perceptions. A car music fan may consider virtuoso violin a squeak and
I may
cover my ears when at a stop sign I'm blasted by boom boom from the
other lane.
3) It is a lucky event when mesurements and preferences of the majority
coincide
as in Olive's loudspeaker tests
But even there there were up to 27/1 differences in "consistency"
between
various groups of listeners.
What I'm driving at is that essentially there ain't no test.
Opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes yes. A"test" for them is a
pipe dream
Science at this stage
of its progress (and maybe never) an summarise how your,
mine and Jenn's grey matter process the information.
Even our decisions whose opinion to trust depend on instinctual inborn
or acquired neuronal affinities. Eg. in the newsgroups I'll trust Harry
Lavo's or
Jenn's preferences because they are more likely to be same as mine.
I won't say whose choices I wouldn't trust-,I'm trying hard to be
non-controversial
But I'll say that bestsellers are no guides to me. In lterature, in
music nd so on.
In brief my answer is: When it comes o preferences ie. aesthetic
choices
Any " test" tests the guy/girl performing it.
Ludovic Mirabel.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248

and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:


I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW

------------------------------------------------------
You say:
I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

My answer is :
) Measurements, if of well- established value, such as frequency
charting
used by Olive
are obviously important. Atkinson does some other measurement that I'm
not
competent to pronounce on.
2) Beyond that everyone is on his own. Just as our DNA's differ so do
our
perceptions. A car music fan may consider virtuoso violin a squeak and
I may
cover my ears when at a stop sign I'm blasted by boom boom from the
other lane.
3) It is a lucky event when mesurements and preferences of the majority
coincide
as in Olive's loudspeaker tests
But even there there were up to 27/1 differences in "consistency"
between
various groups of listeners.
What I'm driving at is that essentially there ain't no test.
Opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes yes. A"test" for them is a
pipe dream
Science at this stage
of its progress (and maybe never) an summarise how your,
mine and Jenn's grey matter process the information.
Even our decisions whose opinion to trust depend on instinctual inborn
or acquired neuronal affinities. Eg. in the newsgroups I'll trust Harry
Lavo's or
Jenn's preferences because they are more likely to be same as mine.
I won't say whose choices I wouldn't trust-,I'm trying hard to be
non-controversial
But I'll say that bestsellers are no guides to me. In lterature, in
music nd so on.
In brief my answer is: When it comes o preferences ie. aesthetic
choices
Any " test" tests the guy/girl performing it.
Ludovic Mirabel.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248

and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:


I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.

ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.L. Clark is or was Arnie's collaborator on the ABX research. I think
he's
serious and has serious things to say. It is interesting that he
appears to be
going beyond ABX. But the summary does not extend a promise of a
change revolutionary enough to fork out twenty bucks. I'll wait till I
can get it
next time I visit Vancouver Public Library.
I'll take this opportunity to raise one more point. You said that ABX
has not been
proved or disproved. That is not the way things work in research.
Imagine a guy saying to someone with Aids:" I discovered a cure for
Aids.
Please start my pills".
Wouldn't the sick man say: "Did you present your evidence to my
doctors."?
"No, I asked them to disprove my cure and they could not"
ABX is a test for showing differences between components. So far, in
four decades, it did not
amass enough convincing evidence to get it published in
a professional journal for acceptance or rejection by other
experimenters.
In medical research such a proposal would have been dead and buried
at birth. It is worse than putting a cart before the horse.
You can't "disprove" something that does not yet exist
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I hope we're setting an example to fellows RAOers. I for one
prefer to
disagree, if I have to, while respecting my opponent..
..
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
You might find this interesting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248

and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:


I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.

ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.L. Clark is or was Arnie's collaborator on the ABX research. I think
he's
serious and has serious things to say. It is interesting that he
appears to be
going beyond ABX. But the summary does not extend a promise of a
change revolutionary enough to fork out twenty bucks. I'll wait till I
can get it
next time I visit Vancouver Public Library.
I'll take this opportunity to raise one more point. You said that ABX
has not been
proved or disproved. That is not the way things work in research.

Sure they do...someone has a problem requiring solution
in this case how do you tell for sure audio sounds different to me or
anyone else?

Then people propose solutions based on theories... and it often
takes time for these proposals to gain acceptance and become
proven.

Imagine a guy saying to someone with Aids:" I discovered a cure for
Aids.
Please start my pills".
Wouldn't the sick man say:
"Did you present your evidence to my
doctors."?

What do you suppose the first Aids victim asked of his doctors?
Seriously...in a time when Aids was a death sentence and doctors had
no cure, many would try anything.
But I think equating comparing audio equipment to life threatening
illnesses is a bit absurd.

"No, I asked them to disprove my cure and they could not"
ABX is a test for showing differences between components. So far, in
four decades, it did not
amass enough convincing evidence to get it published in
a professional journal for acceptance

Burstein accepted it enough to publish 2 papers in AES journals on
the statistics of ABX testing.
Just search the AES site for ABX.

This test used ABX and was presented to AES in Germany.
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf

BTW...heres a positive ABX test on room acoustics.
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewco...text=recording

and heres a positive ABX on subwoofer locations vs frequency.
This is interesting as it compares ABX and AB.
Data doesn't declare one over the other for sensitivity.
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~kim/aes2004sanfrancisco.pdf

Heres an IEEE paper on voice conversion methods using
ABX.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1221719

And an AES paper on switching 1 bit digital streams
that had an unexpected positive on a 50 kHz BW requantization.
http://www.extra.research.philips.co...01/dr_edit.pdf

or rejection by other
experimenters.

I find far more evidence of acceptance in puplished material
than I can for rejection as well as a couple of the
elusive positives in ABX you call for.


In medical research such a proposal would have been dead and buried
at birth. It is worse than putting a cart before the horse.
You can't "disprove" something that does not yet exist

Everything originates and goes through a period of development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.

Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I hope we're setting an example to fellows RAOers. I for one
prefer to
disagree, if I have to, while respecting my opponent..

I've spent some time compliling quite a bit of information for you
to contemplate...most directly available on the net.
I hope you give it fair consideration.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Ojt9g.28968$fG3.23040@dukeread09...

You might find this interesting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248


Oh, the Perceptual Transfer Function box. It's a robotic listener that is
strapped to a chair or seat, and has a mic that moves on a track.

http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/dlc_006.htm

and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:


The essence of this talk was a discussion of approaches for measuring
imaging via enhancments to the PTF analysis system.

I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.

Unlikely. Interesting, but not ready for prime time.

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Just search the AES site for ABX.

This test used ABX and was presented to AES in Germany.
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf

BTW...heres a positive ABX test on room acoustics.
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewco...text=recording

and heres a positive ABX on subwoofer locations vs frequency.
This is interesting as it compares ABX and AB.
Data doesn't declare one over the other for sensitivity.
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~kim/aes2004sanfrancisco.pdf

Heres an IEEE paper on voice conversion methods using
ABX.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1221719

And an AES paper on switching 1 bit digital streams
that had an unexpected positive on a 50 kHz BW requantization.
http://www.extra.research.philips.co...01/dr_edit.pdf

or rejection by other
experimenters.

I find far more evidence of acceptance in puplished material
than I can for rejection as well as a couple of the
elusive positives in ABX you call for.


In medical research such a proposal would have been dead and buried
at birth. It is worse than putting a cart before the horse.
You can't "disprove" something that does not yet exist

Everything originates and goes through a period of development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.

Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I hope we're setting an example to fellows RAOers. I for one
prefer to
disagree, if I have to, while respecting my opponent..

I've spent some time compliling quite a bit of information for you
to contemplate...most directly available on the net.
I hope you give it fair consideration.

Interesting compilation, Scott.

Don't expect Mirabel to give it any credence. He's on a mission from
Middius...

LOL!

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
You might find this interesting.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9248

and Bern Muller will discuss its current status here.
Message id:


I'd be interested if his presentation becomes available
on the web.

ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.L. Clark is or was Arnie's collaborator on the ABX research. I think
he's
serious and has serious things to say. It is interesting that he
appears to be
going beyond ABX. But the summary does not extend a promise of a
change revolutionary enough to fork out twenty bucks. I'll wait till I
can get it
next time I visit Vancouver Public Library.
I'll take this opportunity to raise one more point. You said that ABX
has not been
proved or disproved. That is not the way things work in research.

Sure they do...someone has a problem requiring solution
in this case how do you tell for sure audio sounds different to me or
anyone else?

Then people propose solutions based on theories... and it often
takes time for these proposals to gain acceptance and become
proven.

Imagine a guy saying to someone with Aids:" I discovered a cure for
Aids.
Please start my pills".
Wouldn't the sick man say:
"Did you present your evidence to my
doctors."?

What do you suppose the first Aids victim asked of his doctors?
Seriously...in a time when Aids was a death sentence and doctors had
no cure, many would try anything.
But I think equating comparing audio equipment to life threatening
illnesses is a bit absurd.

"No, I asked them to disprove my cure and they could not"
ABX is a test for showing differences between components. So far, in
four decades, it did not
amass enough convincing evidence to get it published in
a professional journal for acceptance

Burstein accepted it enough to publish 2 papers in AES journals on
the statistics of ABX testing.
Just search the AES site for ABX.

This test used ABX and was presented to AES in Germany.
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projek...paper_6086.pdf

BTW...heres a positive ABX test on room acoustics.
http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/cgi/viewco...text=recording

and heres a positive ABX on subwoofer locations vs frequency.
This is interesting as it compares ABX and AB.
Data doesn't declare one over the other for sensitivity.
http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~kim/aes2004sanfrancisco.pdf

Heres an IEEE paper on voice conversion methods using
ABX.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freea...number=1221719

And an AES paper on switching 1 bit digital streams
that had an unexpected positive on a 50 kHz BW requantization.
http://www.extra.research.philips.co...01/dr_edit.pdf

or rejection by other
experimenters.

I find far more evidence of acceptance in puplished material
than I can for rejection as well as a couple of the
elusive positives in ABX you call for.


In medical research such a proposal would have been dead and buried
at birth. It is worse than putting a cart before the horse.
You can't "disprove" something that does not yet exist

Everything originates and goes through a period of development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.

Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. I hope we're setting an example to fellows RAOers. I for one
prefer to
disagree, if I have to, while respecting my opponent..

I've spent some time compliling quite a bit of information for you
to contemplate...most directly available on the net.
I hope you give it fair consideration.

ScottW

ScottW (Is your first name Scott?), I sincerely appreciate
yours taking trouble.
I did not read the papers- just the titles and your summary so I may be
missing something
But as far as I can see MY opinion on their significance would not be
of slightest importance to anyone. And THEY contribute nothing to the
question of validity
of ABX as a TOOL FOR DETECTING Audible DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AUDIO
COMPONENTS.
My opinion about them would be valueless because as far as I can see
these
are research
papers in psychometrics. I said repeatedly that I know nothing about
psychometrics
( and have no intention of learning more). I also said ,explicitly,
that as far as I know
ABX is probably a good psychometric tool.
Their contribution is neither here nor there regarding the subject of
the so-called
Great Debate.: Comparing Components for listener-audible differences..
One more point:
You say: " Everything originates and goes through a period of
development. If all
ideas
were killed at birth...there would be little progress in the world.

Again I have to call on what I'm acquainted with: Medical therapy
research.
Yes: ideas, thoughts, interesting possibilities don't see the light of
day in an
upscale medical journal UNTIL they present experimental evidince to go
with it.
Just imagine: The world of healing is and always has been full of
brilliant
and not so brilliant ideas, thoughts , proposals: holistic, herbal,
natural,
acupuncture, aroma therapy, Chinese traditional, Hindu, all kinds of
pet diets
..... You can keep filling in.till the cows come home.
There would be no time for anything else if one took it all seriously.
And
would YOU like to be an object for trying it all out?
Mo modern evidential medical treatmentwas born when "interesting
theories" like "miasmas', "punishment for sins" etc. were abandoned
So in my own practice (for what that is worth) I
1) I never used the "new" till there was convincing evidence that it
beat the
old
2) never used anything that remained controversial five years after it
was
first proposed. Compare ABX for component comparison
3) (and here you have a point)- if the alternative was certain death
I'd use
anything at all.
Ludovic Mirabel
Hi Krueger! Nice to hear from you something other than :"Been there
done that" and "Asked and answered". You're really trying.

wrote in message
ups.com...


So in my own practice (for what that is worth) I

1) I never used the "new" till there was convincing evidence that it
beat the old

Of course, with ABX it was almost instantly clearly aparrent that it was
superior to sighted listening.

2) never used anything that remained controversial five years after it
was first proposed. Compare ABX for component comparison

Guess what Mirabel - human life and health is not at stake when you're
comparing audio gear.

3) (and here you have a point)- if the alternative was certain death
I'd use anything at all.

Relying on sighted evaluations of subtle differences is certain intellectual
death.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Relying on sighted evaluations of subtle differences is certain
intellectual death.


We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Relying on sighted evaluations of subtle differences is certain
intellectual death.


We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.

Wrong Art. You are talking about a non-intellectual activity because that's
all you're capable of. One symptom of this is the demonstrated fact that you
don't distinguish between listening to music for pleasure and configuring
and adjusting an audio system. You can't tell the difference because you're
just so freakin' dense.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Relying on sighted evaluations of subtle differences is certain
intellectual death.


We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.

Wrong Art. You are talking about a non-intellectual activity because that's
all you're capable of. One symptom of this is the demonstrated fact that you
don't distinguish between listening to music for pleasure and configuring
and adjusting an audio system. You can't tell the difference because you're
just so freakin' dense.

Actually, the perception of the sound of music is an interesting
combination of brain function and anatomy. It involves the left and
right hemispheres in a unique way. Different aspects of musical
perception involve different parts of the brain; timbre, for example is
mainly a right-brain aspect. Music perception (as opposed to music
performance or music analysis per se) is both an intellectual and
emotional exercise. The best journal on the topic that I know of is
"Music Perception" published by UC Press. Also highly interesting is
the work done at Michigan State University in the combined areas of
physics and psychoacoustics.

Turdborg wrestles with reality, and loses as usual.

We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.

Wrong Art. You are talking about a non-intellectual activity

Ah, the stinky sicciccnenece of "the debating trade": Words uttered by an
Enemy of Kroo are false, but the same words uttered by the Krooborg become
magically true.

No wonder Krooger is so infatuated with "science" -- it does exactly what
he wants it to every time. ;-)




--

A day without Krooger is like a day without radiation poisoning.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



Relying on sighted evaluations of subtle differences is certain
intellectual death.


We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.

Wrong Art. You are talking about a non-intellectual activity because
that's all you're capable of. One symptom of this is the demonstrated fact
that you don't distinguish between listening to music for pleasure and
configuring and adjusting an audio system. You can't tell the difference
because you're just so freakin' dense.


Audio sysems are tweaked for the purposes of listening to and enjoying
music.
Evaluations for such a purpose are best made through listening to and
enjoying the music. It works for me; as far as I'm concerned it meets my
needs. If you get off with or feel more secure by
playing with meters, blind tests, statisitcal analysis, or other scientific
rituals,
I'm glad that you are happy with those efforts.




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"George M. Middius" mail.comcast.net wrote in message
...


Turdborg wrestles with reality, and loses as usual.

We are talking about a non-intellectual activity.

Wrong Art. You are talking about a non-intellectual activity


I missed that admission of his fallibility!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW


When I perform A/B comparisons I put my speakers side by side and run
mono recordings before I try stereo tests. Doing this lets me check the
majority of the issues I want to evaluate and allows for a quick change
via the balance control. If I hear positive A/B results (or at least no
harm) I try stereo. (I ask a family member to switch or not switch
source cables so I am blind)

I understand some of the reasons why blind testing might not be the only
way to go. it's when the sighted only crowd say blind is useless.
that's when I think their credibility is lost.

MD said:

When I perform A/B comparisons

Do you realize you're talking to the whole world now? That includes all
kinds of humans, especially Normals. You're not ensconced in the safety
of the Hive here.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

MD wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
Reply to ScottW. PART 2

ABX was proposed as a "test" to facilitate differentiating audio
components.
1)I did claim that ABX proposed as a "test" for uncovering subtle
differemces between COMPONENTS was not used by anyone,( including Sean
Olive), who got positve results and whose paper was accepted and
published in a reputable, peer-reviewed, professional journal.
POSITIVE report:i would be "Yes we heard a difference" None exist..
"Other applications" are of no interest.
2) I did claim that it points to the fact that as of now 40 years from
its inception it remains an unvalidated proposal for COMPONENT
COMPARISON . I have no opinion and no interest about its uses in
psychometric research etv. Do you?
3) Yes,that is a FLAW for the subject in question
3) The wording and reasoning behind the NONUSE is immaterial. As of
now it is an unvalidated, unusable project. If you want to dwell on the
interpretation of various reasons given for that nonuse be my guest.
And here is my slant on it. A proposal for a "test" which asks people
to listen to A then B then X and next asks :"Is X piece of music you
just heard more like B that you heard before or more like A that you
had had heard first is doomed to result in the "it all sound the same"
by the majority.
4) In the past you voiced other reasons why I "misinterpret" am "not
to be trusted" and "lie" about Sean Olive. I'm not very clear about
your objections. If you want to, please repeat them and we'll go from
there..

My response (can't understand why the process to mark
replied to text sometimes fails in OE).

No objections. I am not going claim ABX is proven any more
than you are claiming that it is disproven.

I would ask... if ABX is unsuitable for establishing differences,
what would you suggest?

ScottW


When I perform A/B comparisons I put my speakers side by side and run
mono recordings before I try stereo tests. Doing this lets me check the
majority of the issues I want to evaluate and allows for a quick change
via the balance control. If I hear positive A/B results (or at least no
harm) I try stereo. (I ask a family member to switch or not switch
source cables so I am blind)

I understand some of the reasons why blind testing might not be the only
way to go. it's when the sighted only crowd say blind is useless.
that's when I think their credibility is lost.

If I understood you you're doing exactly what I described in the Audio
Amateur some five years ago as the "left-rigt method" for comparing
audio components. One is on the left the other one on the right.
You are blinded. You tick off your prefernce.
Your assistant changes ( or does not change) randomly the components
being compared from side to side.
You listen and tick off again. If you achieve 75% consistency in your
preference in 15 trials you have a statistically valid result FOR YOU.
I'll repeat "for you" because you're what you are- like no one else.
If I know you and respect your judgment it may influence me- that's
all.
Any pretence that someone has a test valid for everyone else is
snake oil and nonsense. And physicians know what snake oil is;
if anyone does.
Ludovic Mirabel