[[email protected]]

I discussed Arny's confession in the "Vinyl maven..." thread in
more detail but forty years of sound and fury mountain finally bearing
a squeaky, little mouse deserves its own topic heading

Arny said in the in the "Vinyl maven ..." thread on Nov.6:

"Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair.
You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation

methodology has similar certification."

And if such "other kind" of listening "test" existed outside of Arny's
imagination it would not be evidence-based either ie it would not be
experimentally proven ie it would not be acceptable as science either
to the engineering profession or to us audio consumer peasantry.

So finally, finally you acknowledge your ABX listening test for
comparing components is no "scientific", "objective", "bias-free" TEST.
It is just entertainment for those who fancy this kind of thing. and
their results are their own with no bearing on anyone else's
experience.

Let's leave aside Arny's fast food like invention of "other listening
tests". The only one with a website claiming to teach you a TEST for
comparing audio components and marketing a switch for the purpose is
Arny's brain-child.

And Arny we're not talking of audio reasearch into all kinds of
research topics.. This is about comparing consumer audio components by
a consumer.
Don/t even try your red herrings and false trails again
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com
I discussed Arny's confession in the "Vinyl maven..."
thread in more detail but forty years of sound and fury
mountain finally bearing a squeaky, little mouse deserves
its own topic heading

Arny said in the in the "Vinyl maven ..." thread on
Nov.6:

"Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are
totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of
peer-reviewed paper, completely ignoring the fact that no
other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification."

And if such "other kind" of listening "test" existed
outside of Arny's imagination it would not be
evidence-based either ie it would not be experimentally
proven ie it would not be acceptable as science either to
the engineering profession or to us audio consumer
peasantry.

Thanks Mirabel for admitting that you think that ABX is the only listening
methodology that is experimentally proven and acceptable as science to
either the engineering profession or to audio consumers.

That's what your last paragraph says, pure and simple.

Of course you're wrong again, Ludo. ABX is *not* the only listening
methodology that is experimentally proven and acceptable as science to
either the engineering profession or to audio consumers. There are a
number of other listening methodologies that are etc., etc., etc., just like
ABX. There's ABC/hr for example.

The point is that the non-level-matched, non-time-synched,
non-bias-controlled uncontrolled sighted listening procedures that many
audiophiles use is generally invalid because of three serious issues:

(1) Non-level-matched listening comparisons are invalid because they give
positive results that are mostl likely due to the absence of proper
level-matching. The identical same sound presented at two different levels
sounds different and can obscure other differences that may or many not be
present at the same time.

(2) Non-time-synched listening comparisons are invalid because they give
positive results that are most likely due to the absence of proper time
synching. It should be no surprise that comparing equipment with different
musical selections sounds different. Even the same performance presented at
two different times throughout the performance sounds different, and can
obscure other differences that may or may not be present.

(3) Without bias controls, the outcome of a listening comparison that would
otherwise be a comparison of two sounds that are identical or very similar
degenerates into a report on the prejudices and preconceived notions of the
listeners.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

I discussed Arny's confession in the "Vinyl maven..."
thread in more detail but forty years of sound and fury
mountain finally bearing a squeaky, little mouse deserves
its own topic heading

Arny said in the in the "Vinyl maven ..." thread on
Nov.6:

"Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are
totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of
peer-reviewed paper, completely ignoring the fact that no
other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification."

And if such "other kind" of listening "test" existed
outside of Arny's imagination it would not be
evidence-based either ie it would not be experimentally
proven ie it would not be acceptable as science either to
the engineering profession or to us audio consumer
peasantry.

Thanks Mirabel for admitting that you think that ABX is the only listening
methodology that is experimentally proven and acceptable as science to
either the engineering profession or to audio consumers.

That's what your last paragraph says, pure and simple.

Of course you're wrong again, Ludo. ABX is *not* the only listening
methodology that is experimentally proven and acceptable as science to
either the engineering profession or to audio consumers. There are a
number of other listening methodologies that are etc., etc., etc., just like
ABX. There's ABC/hr for example.

The point is that the non-level-matched, non-time-synched,
non-bias-controlled uncontrolled sighted listening procedures that many
audiophiles use is generally invalid because of three serious issues:

(1) Non-level-matched listening comparisons are invalid because they give
positive results that are mostl likely due to the absence of proper
level-matching. The identical same sound presented at two different levels
sounds different and can obscure other differences that may or many not be
present at the same time.

(2) Non-time-synched listening comparisons are invalid because they give
positive results that are most likely due to the absence of proper time
synching. It should be no surprise that comparing equipment with different
musical selections sounds different. Even the same performance presented at
two different times throughout the performance sounds different, and can
obscure other differences that may or may not be present.

(3) Without bias controls, the outcome of a listening comparison that would
otherwise be a comparison of two sounds that are identical or very similar
degenerates into a report on the prejudices and preconceived notions of the
listeners.
===============================


For sheer brazen shamelessnes this your posting takes the cake..

"Thanks Mirabel for admitting that you think that ABX is the only
listening
methodology that is experimentally proven and acceptable as science to
either the engineering profession or to audio consumers"

And this is what I "admitted"

"And if such "other kind" of listening "test" existed outside of Arny's

imagination it would NOT be evidence-based EITHER ie it would not be
experimentally proven ie it would not be acceptable as science either
to the engineering profession or to us audio consumer peasantry.
So finally, finally you acknowledge your ABX listening test for
comparing components is no "scientific", "objective", "bias-free" TEST.

It is just entertainment for those who fancy this kind of thing. and
their results are their own with no bearing on anyone else's
experience.:"

Normally I try to avoid personalities - even when someone sees fit,
like Arny does, to shout "ignorant or senile".

After reading your extraordinary missive I'll make you a compliment.
You can't be so stupid as to read into my simple enough text exactly
the opposite of what I wrote plainly and unequivocally and not for
first time.

Arny - Not only ABX is NOT "THE ONLY EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN COMPONENT
LISTENING TEST"
BUT ON THE CONTRARY ABX LACKS ANY EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION WHATSOEVER.

NONE, NONE, NONE.

In the absence of a single experimental, validating paper acceptable
to a professional journal ABX for audio component comparison by audio
consumeris is a fairy tale dreamt up and marketed by you. As science it
does not exist.

Wouldn't you like me to start an argument with you about the problems
of sighted listening tests? Or about ABX/hr that you don't have on your
website, that no one pushes on the consumer and that you trot out to
confuse a simple enough issue. Your usual red herring tactics that I
don't buy.

Come back the day you have a TEST that will account not only for your
1,2,3 paragraphs but for the infinite veriety of human expectations,
experience, maturity, hearing ability of Toms, Dicks and Harrys

I'll tell you a secret: Such a TEST does not exist.
Not for reproductions of paintings, for violins, organs and
performers.. There is only us :fallible humans- all hearing something
different
Ludovic Mirabel
==================================
Addendum: To show more evidence of Arny's brazeness I'm copying my
answer to him from the "The vinyl maven..." thread. It was posted 2
days ago
It is even more clear and unequivocal.
Addendum - ie. optional reading when time allows..

Arny challenges

Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification.

Thanks for acknowledging ( at last) that your "test" was never
validated by experimentation that would make it worthy of publication
in a professional journal.

Definition of *test* from Wikipedia:
"Test and experiment form parts of the scientific method, to verify or
falsify an expectation with an observation". A test is a part of
scientific method, scientifically validated by experimentation. It is
not something that you dream up one night, publish on the web and then
market a switch for performing it.

....completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification.


No Master Krueger,( the self-proclaimed Gulliver amongst Liliputians),
this time your usual squid ink release will not do. Name those other
audio "listening evaluations" for audio component comparing that have a

web site and a gadget for Tom, Dick and Harry consumers to use. Forget
"others" - just ONE will do.

Krueger now produces his last ditch argument an ad hominem body blow:

Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
there is none

Thank you for acknowledging that neither you nor I have any scientific
basis for proclaiming a TEST.

Thanks for your honesty in acknowledging that it was devised by me to
be a
SUBJECTIVE method.

But no thanks for trying next to obfusccate the difference.. From the
start and several times since I said I did not have a TEST. Explicitly,

clearly.
On Sept. 23 2003 I said in RAHE:

"I'll re-re-re repeat a disclaimer. I'm not proposing a "test" and
I'm not into research.... .
A true "test" must be repeatable by the population at which it is
aimed- in this case the "audiophile" motley crew: from the car-audio
to chamber music lovers. Such a "test" does not exist. DBT is not that
and I have not invented one.
I'm describing one of the ways of avoiding sighted bias that works
for me and some others but may not work for "us". ."

And after redescribing my left-right method for home use by listeners I

reemphasised:

"NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method
that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me
and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only
use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias."

The difference is between a precise outlining of the use AND THE
LIMITATIONS of a method and phony claims to a "scientific" magic bullet

with "objective", non-biased" validity.based on hot air.

For your delight since you insist on resurrecting a topic that I gave
up to a stirred hornets' nest I'll repeat it.and face the buzz once
once more.
Ludovic Miabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Arny - Not only ABX is NOT "THE ONLY EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN COMPONENT LISTENING TEST"
BUT ON THE CONTRARY ABX LACKS ANY EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
WHATSOEVER.

NONE, NONE, NONE.

OK Mirabel, you then must live in an alternative universe where ABX was not
validated by the JAES review board, was not validated by the editor(s) of
Audio and Sound and Vision, was not validated by the Hydrogen Audio forum,
and was not validated by thousands of audio enthusiasts who have done their
own ABX tests.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Arny - Not only ABX is NOT "THE ONLY EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN COMPONENT LISTENING TEST"
BUT ON THE CONTRARY ABX LACKS ANY EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
WHATSOEVER.

NONE, NONE, NONE.

OK Mirabel, you then must live in an alternative universe where ABX was not
validated by the JAES review board, was not validated by the editor(s) of
Audio and Sound and Vision, was not validated by the Hydrogen Audio forum,
and was not validated by thousands of audio enthusiasts who have done their
own ABX tests.
==========================
Just to refresh your highly selective memory:
The subject is: ABX AS A LISTENING TEST FOR AUDIO COMPONENT
COMPARISON.

Give REFERENCE to the JAES review board validating it for THIS USE or
quote the exact words of this validation. Jet propulsion is great in
the air and water. Not in cars on the ground. Abx may be great for some
research projects.

Reference looks like this: (I'm copying the first reference out of 45
in a paper by S. Olive in JAES). 1) S.Bech. "Selection....". J.Audio
Eng.Soc., vol 40, pp.590-610(1992 July/Aug)

This is not the first time that I'm trying to teach you, the RAO
science booster, what a reference. looks like. Trying capitals now to
get a brain-imprint.

Reference to a pop mag or to a web site is NOT EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATING
RESEARCH REFERENCE. This is elementary in any research paper. You must
have very little acquaintance with that or you're just being your usual
artful dodger self. Or both.

As for validation " by thousands of audio enthusiasts who have done
their own ABX tests". No self respecting advertiser would be caught
dead writing that enthusiastic endorsement of Mc. Donalds hamburgers
with chips shows how much they contribute to the nation's health. And
not even your witness "Sound and Vision" would affirm that the fact
that most people buy their Audio in a neighbourhood supermarket proves
their superior taste and discrimination.

But you do.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Arny - Not only ABX is NOT "THE ONLY EXPERIMENTALLY
PROVEN COMPONENT LISTENING TEST"
BUT ON THE CONTRARY ABX LACKS ANY EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
WHATSOEVER.

NONE, NONE, NONE.

OK Mirabel, you then must live in an alternative universe where ABX was
not
validated by the JAES review board, was not validated by the editor(s) of
Audio and Sound and Vision, was not validated by the Hydrogen Audio
forum,
and was not validated by thousands of audio enthusiasts who have done
their
own ABX tests.

Just to refresh your highly selective memory:
The subject is: ABX AS A LISTENING TEST FOR AUDIO COMPONENT
COMPARISON.

Give REFERENCE to the JAES review board validating it for THIS USE or
quote the exact words of this validation.

AFAIK, no restrictions were placed on the uses of ABX in the article that
the JAES review board reviewed.

I think that Mirabel is just jealous that the JAES turned down the article
he submitted about his hairbrained component comparison scheme.