[[email protected]]

Where did we stop in Act 2:

Mirabel, I don't have time for the likely unending debate over the
difference between comparing and differentiating.

Except that it is not about that at all. It is about your quoting;:
" ..a paper by David Clark
as your ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
validated. As I predicted that paper did
not have one word to say about the subject.

And your answer?
As I said Clark followed a
different approach from the one you've made after the fact.

If he "followed a different approach" and you still can not quote any
results what on earth did you quote his paper as your ONLY etc.
etc.....Where is your EVIDENCE?

Tell the truth Krueger. You thought you could get the real subject
derailed into the idiot level semantics, didn't you?

Krueger: there is no debate. There's just pinning down a huckster of
quack audio remedies.
I did not expect that an experienced peddler like you would run out of
stuffing so soon.
You tried running " my articles in JAES" up the pole. Shot down
because you could not name ONE.
Next you trumpeted the mysteries of engineering English inaccessible
to mere foreigners like myself. But you are getting my English now, I
hope..
You tried insults: "ignorance", "senility" whatever.
Go mute as many times as you like. If you don't huckster you'll have
immunity. If you restart under whatever clever-clever cryptonim (eg.
"bias controlled test" etc) you'll hear from me again
..
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

Krueger: there is no debate. There's just pinning down a
huckster of quack audio remedies.


Ludo, I did a pretty good job of tricking you into exposing your quack audio
remedy, didn't I?

You tried running " my articles in JAES" up the pole.

They exist. What's your problem?

Shot down because you could not name ONE.

It's been about 20 years since I wrote them. They don't show up on the AES
CD because they were neither conference papers nor formal technical papers.
Do I remember the titles? No. So what?

Next you trumpeted the mysteries of engineering English
inaccessible to mere foreigners like myself.

And proved it. Ludo, you said that Clark's JAES article that introduced ABX
says nothing about equipment comparisons, when in fact it does. First
sentence. You then returned to your lengthy whine about Clark's article not
conforming to an outline for it that you made up in just the past few years.
That's what happens when you are about 20 years late on the scene, and show
up empty-handed.

Bottom line is that ABX does what it is designed to. Despite your continual
belly-aching it is still highly regarded. Indeed, you prove its relevance by
continuing to rant and rave about it. Thanks for doing your part in keeping
ABX in the public eye.

[[email protected]]

The subject is:Krueger's quoting .a paper by David Clark
" as your ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and
DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
validated. As I predicted that paper did
not have one word to say about the subject".

The only one he found for four decades of ABX promotion
Below find his answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

Krueger: there is no debate. There's just pinning down a
huckster of quack audio remedies.

Ludo, I did a pretty good job of tricking you into exposing your quack audio
remedy, didn't I?

You tried running " my articles in JAES" up the pole.

They exist. What's your problem?

Shot down because you could not name ONE.

It's been about 20 years since I wrote them. They don't show up on the AES
CD because they were neither conference papers nor formal technical papers.
Do I remember the titles? No. So what?

Next you trumpeted the mysteries of engineering English
inaccessible to mere foreigners like myself.

And proved it. Ludo, you said that Clark's JAES article that introduced ABX
says nothing about equipment comparisons, when in fact it does. First
sentence. You then returned to your lengthy whine about Clark's article not
conforming to an outline for it that you made up in just the past few years.
That's what happens when you are about 20 years late on the scene, and show
up empty-handed.

Bottom line is that ABX does what it is designed to. Despite your continual
belly-aching it is still highly regarded. Indeed, you prove its relevance by
continuing to rant and rave about it. Thanks for doing your part in keeping
ABX in the public eye.

[ScottW]

Ludovic,

Here's an interesting article of an honest attempt to conduct a test.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

What about this test?
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index1.html

which...as I've pointed out...it is easy to reduce an ABX test to this
condition.

or here's an idea....you could build this. Conduct your own test and
be the first successful ABX tester.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

Here's a forum thread I stumbled across...RAO used to have discussions
like this.
then there was George...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=913809

this link is interesting....Stereophile takes a hit :
Stereophile carried out a double-blind test and then examined the
results of only those subjects who got high scores. They concluded that
this group had demonstrated the ability to hear differences. This,
however, is statistically invalid: even for randomly generated answers,
in a large group 1 out of 20 subjects would be expected to satisfy the
95% criterion by chance alone. (This group represents the 5% that
you're 95% confident that a given subject doesn't fall into.) To
ascertain whether there really is a golden-eared group, they should
have selected the high scorers and used them for another series of
trials.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

and another here...BAS has it in for Stereophile?
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

and Ludo..since your a keeper of the AES library...is there a positive
ABX test hidden in this paper?
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12706

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
Ludovic,

Here's an interesting article of an honest attempt to conduct a test.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...s-12-2004.html

What about this test?
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index1.html

which...as I've pointed out...it is easy to reduce an ABX test to this
condition.

or here's an idea....you could build this. Conduct your own test and
be the first successful ABX tester.
http://sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

Here's a forum thread I stumbled across...RAO used to have discussions
like this.
then there was George...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=913809

this link is interesting....Stereophile takes a hit :
Stereophile carried out a double-blind test and then examined the
results of only those subjects who got high scores. They concluded that
this group had demonstrated the ability to hear differences. This,
however, is statistically invalid: even for randomly generated answers,
in a large group 1 out of 20 subjects would be expected to satisfy the
95% criterion by chance alone. (This group represents the 5% that
you're 95% confident that a given subject doesn't fall into.) To
ascertain whether there really is a golden-eared group, they should
have selected the high scorers and used them for another series of
trials.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

and another here...BAS has it in for Stereophile?
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm

and Ludo..since your a keeper of the AES library...is there a positive
ABX test hidden in this paper?
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12706

ScottW
====================================

I am truly appreciative of the time and work you put in collecting
these intersting sources.
I am flattered that you're asking for my opinion.. Last but not
least:any discussion about audio, especially when it is kept within the
bounds of common courtesy like yours, must be welcome.in an a
rec.audio. opinion forum.

I'll try to repay the compliment by being candid about my prejudices.
The first one is against people who invoke "science" as their witness.
The one science I am (or was ) fairly familiar with is human
physiology- translated by me ad hoc as the science of how the body
works.
A three-year old edition of a physiology textbook is out of date. A
five year old one is disposable rubbish. I remember my puzzlement after
reading some of the textbooks. Some chapters made no sense to me. I
thought I was dense and kept rereading, One day I realised that most
textbook authors never said: "We don't yet know.the answer..". The
discovery made my life easier and my exam results better.

It strikes me that the RAO scientists believe that they hold the final
answers. The essence of science is that it is a living thing. When it
comes to how the brain works perceiving complex sounds it is still free
for all. Except in RAO.

The other prejudice is in favour of human art activity being the one
redemptive value for what we do to the earth and to each other. I see
perception of art as essentialy an inviolate subjective property. I
include reaction to reproduction of music amongs artistic perception
activities, subjective by definition. Any attempt at a mechanical
"testing" of our infinitely varied reactions to music is doomed to
failure. Same as trying to test individual response to various ways of
reproducing a painting. At best you get a statistical majority for one
way or the other. But what about the statistical minority? Are they
wrong in deciding their own way?.

In audio I'll trust the judgement of J. Gordon Holt or Kalman Rubinson
over their RAO competition.

Why? Because by experience I decided that their choices ( based on
their set of preferences/prejudices) are more likely to correspond with
mine.

Having said that (at excessive length) all I can say reading your
sources is that they confirm my prejudices. Most blind tests are
inconclusive because human variety is infinite. If there is a majority
preference like in Sean Olive loudspeaker testing there remains a
minority that hears differently. It is up to you to decide whose brains
are more likely to resemble yours.

IIn conclusion: My feeling is that in the present state of the art
collective component
listening tests are a waste of time.
As an individual exercise they may help to shapen perception. But the
results are applicable to the individual only.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:


It's been about 20 years since I wrote them. They don't show up on the AES
CD because they were neither conference papers nor formal technical papers.
Do I remember the titles? No. So what?

That's what happens when you are about 20 years late on the scene, and show
up empty-handed.


Score!!!!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:


or here's an idea....you could build this. Conduct your own test and
be the first successful ABX tester.

Scott, thanks for admiting that there has never been a successful
ABX tester!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

I'll try to repay the compliment by being candid about my
prejudices. The first one is against people who invoke
"science" as their witness.

The leading practioner of that around here would probably be Middius.

It strikes me that the RAO scientists believe that they
hold the final answers.

That's completely unfounded. First off, who on RAO besides you and Middius
proclaims themselves as being guardians of scientific truth?

Secondly, isn't it true that all findings of science are provisional until
something better is found?

The essence of science is that it
is a living thing. When it comes to how the brain works
perceiving complex sounds it is still free for all.

All science is a free-for-all. Why bring this up as being a special problem
of human perception?

Except in RAO.

Well, with science being defended by Middius and Ludovic, yes RAO is quite
the precarious place.

The other prejudice is in favour of human art activity
being the one redemptive value for what we do to the
earth and to each other. I see perception of art as
essentialy an inviolate subjective property.

In fact the reproduction of art is quite distinct from perception of art. So
the parqagraph above may be poetic, but it has little to do with audio.

I include reaction to reproduction of music amongs artistic
perception activities, subjective by definition.

That's no excuse to throw reasonble attempts at making fair evaluations out
the door.

Any attempt at a mechanical "testing" of our infinitely
varied reactions to music is doomed to failure.

Then why rant and rave that ABX is a special kind of failure?

Same as
trying to test individual response to various ways of
reproducing a painting.

Terrible logic. Audio is not about the art of painting, its about the
technology of reproducing the image of a painting in such a way that it can
be enjoyed by many who are unable to see the painting up front and personal.

It is fair to ask whether a black-and-white 40 dpi halftone of a painting
reproduces the image of the painting more convincingly than a
high-resolution color plate.

At best you get a statistical majority for one way or the other. But what
about the
statistical minority? Are they wrong in deciding their own way?.

Muddled thinking at best.

In audio I'll trust the judgement of J. Gordon Holt or
Kalman Rubinson over their RAO competition.

Thats a decision you get to make Ludo, but it doesn't justify your constant
illogical attacks on one of the many attempts at reliable, fair audio
evaluation.

Why? Because by experience I decided that their choices (
based on their set of preferences/prejudices) are more
likely to correspond with mine.

IOW, the blind leading the blind. Or is it simply hero-worship?

Having said that (at excessive length) all I can say
reading your sources is that they confirm my prejudices.
Most blind tests are inconclusive because human variety
is infinite.

That's why blind tests are used to judge medical treatments - they are so
inconclusive.

If there is a majority preference like in
Sean Olive loudspeaker testing there remains a minority
that hears differently. It is up to you to decide whose
brains are more likely to resemble yours.

Ignores the fact that the majority of listeners tend to prefer the
loudspeaker that is more free of audible imperfections.


IIn conclusion: My feeling is that in the present state
of the art collective component listening tests are a waste of time.

Then why do you spend so much time writing about them, and almost nothing
else?

Ludo, your actions belie your posturing.

[[email protected]]

The subject is:Krueger's quoting .a paper by David Clark
" as your ONLY piece of evidence that ABX for listening to and


DIFFERENTIATING audio components is research-backed and
validated. As I predicted that paper did
not have one word to say about the subject".


The only one he found for four decades of ABX promotion
Below find his answer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

I'll try to repay the compliment by being candid about my
prejudices. The first one is against people who invoke
"science" as their witness.

The leading practioner of that around here would probably be Middius.

It strikes me that the RAO scientists believe that they
hold the final answers.

That's completely unfounded. First off, who on RAO besides you and Middius
proclaims themselves as being guardians of scientific truth?

Secondly, isn't it true that all findings of science are provisional until
something better is found?

The essence of science is that it
is a living thing. When it comes to how the brain works
perceiving complex sounds it is still free for all.

All science is a free-for-all. Why bring this up as being a special problem
of human perception?

Except in RAO.

Well, with science being defended by Middius and Ludovic, yes RAO is quite
the precarious place.

The other prejudice is in favour of human art activity
being the one redemptive value for what we do to the
earth and to each other. I see perception of art as
essentialy an inviolate subjective property.

In fact the reproduction of art is quite distinct from perception of art. So
the parqagraph above may be poetic, but it has little to do with audio.

I include reaction to reproduction of music amongs artistic
perception activities, subjective by definition.

That's no excuse to throw reasonble attempts at making fair evaluations out
the door.

Any attempt at a mechanical "testing" of our infinitely
varied reactions to music is doomed to failure.

Then why rant and rave that ABX is a special kind of failure?

Same as
trying to test individual response to various ways of
reproducing a painting.

Terrible logic. Audio is not about the art of painting, its about the
technology of reproducing the image of a painting in such a way that it can
be enjoyed by many who are unable to see the painting up front and personal.

It is fair to ask whether a black-and-white 40 dpi halftone of a painting
reproduces the image of the painting more convincingly than a
high-resolution color plate.

At best you get a statistical majority for one way or the other. But what
about the
statistical minority? Are they wrong in deciding their own way?.

Muddled thinking at best.

In audio I'll trust the judgement of J. Gordon Holt or
Kalman Rubinson over their RAO competition.

Thats a decision you get to make Ludo, but it doesn't justify your constant
illogical attacks on one of the many attempts at reliable, fair audio
evaluation.

Why? Because by experience I decided that their choices (
based on their set of preferences/prejudices) are more
likely to correspond with mine.

IOW, the blind leading the blind. Or is it simply hero-worship?

Having said that (at excessive length) all I can say
reading your sources is that they confirm my prejudices.
Most blind tests are inconclusive because human variety
is infinite.

That's why blind tests are used to judge medical treatments - they are so
inconclusive.

If there is a majority preference like in
Sean Olive loudspeaker testing there remains a minority
that hears differently. It is up to you to decide whose
brains are more likely to resemble yours.

Ignores the fact that the majority of listeners tend to prefer the
loudspeaker that is more free of audible imperfections.


IIn conclusion: My feeling is that in the present state
of the art collective component listening tests are a waste of time.

Then why do you spend so much time writing about them, and almost nothing
else?

Ludo, your actions belie your posturing.