[[email protected]]

The time has come to write an epitaph and bury an audio
red herring - DBT/ABX listening "test"

Three days ago I posted a challenge (not for the first time) to Mr.
Krueger in particular, but open to anyone: to quote a reference to one
single paper reporting a listening test of audio components where the
panel using ABX/DBT successfully differentiated between ANY comparable
audio components- a paper judged to be good enough to be accepted by a
professional audio journal.
My question was met with deafening silence.
In science any proposal for a testing method which in forty years has
not had any experimental evidence to support it is dead.
And good riddance. What a waste of ink and time it has been
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

wrote:
The time has come to write an epitaph and bury an audio
red herring - DBT/ABX listening "test"

Three days ago I posted a challenge (not for the first time) to Mr.
Krueger in particular, but open to anyone: to quote a reference to one
single paper reporting a listening test of audio components where the
panel using ABX/DBT successfully differentiated between ANY comparable
audio components- a paper judged to be good enough to be accepted by a
professional audio journal.
My question was met with deafening silence.
In science any proposal for a testing method which in forty years has
not had any experimental evidence to support it is dead.
And good riddance. What a waste of ink and time it has been
Ludovic Mirabel

If you're speaking of yourself you are very correct, you are a waste.

Why not a challenge for you to find out who among the serious auido
researchers does not use some variant of a DBT protocol?

ABX is one, but there are others used by many involved in research.
Sean Olive could provide you with a guide to proper listening tests and
the names of some of the compaines that use them, such as Bang&Olafson,
Nokia, and others.

I assume that as usual, you will try to maintain your ididotic stance
that ABX is useless and has not revealed that when DUT's are close
enough in measurement, they are sonically indistinguishable.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
wrote:
The time has come to write an epitaph and bury an audio
red herring - DBT/ABX listening "test"

Three days ago I posted a challenge (not for the first time) to Mr.
Krueger in particular, but open to anyone: to quote a reference to one
single paper reporting a listening test of audio components where the
panel using ABX/DBT successfully differentiated between ANY comparable
audio components- a paper judged to be good enough to be accepted by a
professional audio journal.
My question was met with deafening silence.
In science any proposal for a testing method which in forty years has
not had any experimental evidence to support it is dead.
And good riddance. What a waste of ink and time it has been
Ludovic Mirabel

If you're speaking of yourself you are very correct, you are a waste.

Why not a challenge for you to find out who among the serious auido
researchers does not use some variant of a DBT protocol?

ABX is one, but there are others used by many involved in research.
Sean Olive could provide you with a guide to proper listening tests and
the names of some of the compaines that use them, such as Bang&Olafson,
Nokia, and others.

I assume that as usual, you will try to maintain your ididotic stance
that ABX is useless and has not revealed that when DUT's are close
enough in measurement, they are sonically indistinguishable.

When Krueger runs out of verbiage he calls for his :slight forger"
court clown
to ring the bells on his cap , do a few leaps and generally provide a
distraction.
Ludovic Mirabel