..
Over the last five years in the RAO and RAHE I posted
and reposted a challenge
for one, single reference to a paper in a professional audio journal
eg. JAES that would conclude with a positive outcome after an ABX
comparison of comparable audio components.:
(Positive outcome meaning: In "Conclusions": "This test showed that
differences can be heard"
Over the years I had a variety of responses.
: 1) quotes to websites, friendly get togethers,
personal results etc.
All invalid by definition.
2) "JAES does not publish component comparisons".
(Krueger)
Offhand I posted a doxen such papers skimmed off the
top- many more available.
2) "Jaes does but under code names only" (Krueger):
I asked for such "positive" papers using ABX under
code names. No answer.
3) "No such papers possible because "well-designed"
audio components other than speakers and phono cartridges sound the
same" (Krueger et al.).
4) "OK. I asked. Have you got any positive ABX
listening tests of speakers (and/or cartridges)"?
"No- not worth doing- anybody can tell they are
different".
( Except they can't. See eg. Olive's loudspeaker paper.). But still no
papers to quote.
5) "JAES and other research journals printed many
such papers. Here are the quotes" (NYOB,Pinkerton and ScottW.)
All of these "quotes" turned out to be to
closely-defined psychometric research topics- eg. perception of phase
difference
Not to COMPONENT COMPARISON (for their respective abilities for
reproducing music).
No one questions the validity of the ABX method in
psychometrics. But this is a rec. audio forum discussing the best way
for the audio lovers to make their choices.
And there the matters rest 40 years later.
Remeber this next time an RAO pseudo-scientist asks
if you "proved" your perceptions by a "bias-controlled test".
The answer is "It is up to you to prove first that
your "test" does not prevent me from hearing differences ".
Do it by EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, please. Not by
dogma-chanting..
Ludovic Mirabel
Posted as a summary and a resource for use as
needed.
Addendum: My answer to Krueger's last posting in the defunct older
thread:

Arny Krueger wrote: (14th May)
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.
If you did not yet learn the difference between "clearly apparent" and
"evidential" Krueger it might be too late. But let's try.
Some "clearly apparent" beliefs: "My religion, my party, my ABX are
superior to yours".
Evidence means: experiments with well-designed protocol.
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.

But... can one be permitted a yawn say 10 years after hearing the same
"clearly apparent" dogmas, minus evidence, rechanted year after year?
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.
"Certain" for some, Krueger,. In medical research 25 to35% are victims
of
"placebo effect" ie. bias, The other 65 to 75% are immune. Don't
overestimate the value of introspection Krueger. Intellects differ.