[R. Stanton]

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
most
similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
consider
the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

I am proposing a new test. Let us call it: the X-Y test.

The computer selects (randomly) one of the following four
combinations
of signals, AA, BB, AB, BA, and sends it to switches X and Y. In
this
test, the subject uses only two switches. He does an AB comparison of
the two sounds and notes if they are the same, or different.

Sources

B --------------
. .
Switches
A --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- X
B --------------

A --------------
.. .
--------- Y
A --------------

B --------------

B --------------

After each trial, the computer records the answer, then randomly
selects another pair of signals to go to switches X and Y. The trials
continue until a reasonable accuracy is achieved.

How the test is scored:

The answers to all trials (AA, BB, AB, BA) are counted. Answers are
scored the same way as ABX system scores answers.

What if someone tries to cheat?

Suppose someone tried to cheat by putting down a false answer, such
as:
"heard difference" when she actually didn't hear a difference? It
wouldn't work.

1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.
3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score of of 50%
correct.

A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not* hear a
difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the ABX
test,
and would give a more accurate indication of someones ability to hear
a
difference in the components.

Bob Stanton

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg clanked:

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.

Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 9:51 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg clanked:

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.Congratulations on being promoted to Full Hivie Drone, R. It's long overdue.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
Proverbs 26:5?

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg pretends to piety.

Tell us some other interesting stuff about "life" in the Hive. After your
torture sessions with the aBxism rituals, do you immediately sequester
yourselves in your regeneration chambers? What kind of special nutritional
paste does your food preparation drone serve up for the holidays? Is it true
that all the males in the Hive have opted for a certain implant because of
the rumors that ED meds are "snake oil"?

We want to know it all, R.

Should I answer you according to the advice in Proverbs 26:4 or
Proverbs 26:5?

The main point is that you have never once undergone an aBxism ritual.
You've probably never even seen one of the dread torture boxes up close.
You're nothing but a Hivie troll, sent to RAO, probably on the orders of the
maniacal Dr. Not, to deflect attention from the Krooborg.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

Normally, we compare components only two at a time. With the ABX test,
we must listen to three sound sources and decide which two are the
most
similar. Comments from this group, have shown that many people
consider
the ABX test stressful and confusing. One person who used the ABX test
for a group evaluation wrote: "... several of us noted that we had
great difficulty remembering what A had sounded like by the time we
got through with X." This is typical of the complaints about ABX.

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

When participating in an ABX test[sic], can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

No you cannot, but you are, of course, free to gouge out your eyeballs at
any time.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
music?

Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
when you switch; it is up to the listener.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example,
listen to the same passage of music for as long a period
as one wishes to? For example, can you listen to A for,
say, 5 min, then listen to B with the same passage of
music?

Yes. The initial goal of the ABX test was to provide a test that was both
double-blind and self-administered. IOW, as far as how long one listens, and
when you switch; it is up to the listener.

Great, thanks for the answer.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Great, thanks for the answer.

No, you may not borrow Arnii's aBxism torture box.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
to be heard.

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?


Of course you can. There are no artificial impediments to you doing
whatever you think you need to do in order to hear whatever there is
to be heard.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
example, listen to the same passage of music for as
long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for
example, listen to the same passage of music for as
long a period as one wishes to? For example, can you
listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned
question. See how it works?

I thought maybe you just wanted to give George something to do. ;-)

Nope, I had a question about something that I don't know about and I
asked someone who would know. I understand that it's an odd concept and
all. ;-)

[dizzy]

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

[[email protected]]

dizzy wrote:
Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

Serious thought by serious people was given once to the question of how
many angels could be accomodated on a headpin. Thoughts are fascinating
but results is what matters.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article ,
dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

dizzy wrote:

Jenn wrote:

When participating in an ABX test, can one, for example, listen to the
same passage of music for as long a period as one wishes to? For
example, can you listen to A for, say, 5 min, then listen to B with the
same passage of music?

I must say, Jenn, you're really up on the subject. Not.

I must say, Dizzy, that's why I asked the damned question. See how it
works?

Well, really, Jenn. If such a thing were not allowed, would it not be
rather easy to attack the process with questions like "why not" and
"what are you afraid of"? Some serious thought has been given to it,
you know...

You're not making sense.

[Sander deWaal]

"R. Stanton" said:

Better than ABX?


Yup.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Enjoying is irrelevant. Preferences will be assimilated. You are
noncompliant with the Hive. You will be terminated.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
"R. Stanton" said:

Better than ABX?


Yup.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.


Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.

[George M. Middius]

Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.

"Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
Nobody is stupider than duh-Mikey. Not even you, Scooter.

Just listening and enjoying the music is better than ABX.

Of course, but some people like to see if there's any differences that
might be worth paying for.

"Dumber than a box of rocks" about sums it up.

Is not2cool4u named Scott? or are you too senile to know who you're
responding too?

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.

I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.

Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.

--
Bill

[Sander deWaal]

Bill Riel said:


I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Hi Sander,

I'd never be critical of anyone's preferences, and I do tend to do
almost all of my listening in 2 channel as well. However, I have heard
some music in 5.1 that was very impressive - usually the best will be
classical music and the surrounds simply provide hall ambience and can
be a tremendously immersive experience.



I'm sure it is possible, I just said it isn't my thing.
That's why I always use disclaimers like "IMO", "in my case" etc. etc.


I've heard some nice jazz that way, too, though I hate it when
instruments get mixed to the surrounds.

If properly set up, subs shouldn't "boom" (well, perhaps except in
movies). But, imo, it's actually non-trivial to position and "dial-in" a
sub properly so it blends seamlessly. When it does, you shouldn't even
know that it's on - you just get tremendous, clean bass extension.


That is also possible, but seldom the case.
I'm a dipole user, and integrating a sub with dipoles can be quite
frustrating IMO.

With films, it mostly is unnatural, unnerving and sometimes outright
ridiculous.
James Bond shutting the door of a car, and 3 houses further, the
pictures start falling from the wall.


Anyway, I'm not trying to lecture you - I know you've forgotten more
about audio than I'll ever know, but 5.1 can be a pretty amazing
experience with the right source & setup imo.


Dunno if I know as much about audio as you seem to think I do (or that
it even matters), I'm just saying that stereo is enough for me, for
music.

I'm reacting strongly to people who seem to think there's only one
possible way of doing things right, and that the only right way is
always *their* way.

I try to offer alternate views, but don't shove them in your face with
a.....well, a shovel ;-)

This place is called rec.audio.OPINION, everyone's 2 cents worth about
audio.

Please, read my posts in that context.
I'll try to be more clear about presenting my views as opinions, not
as gospel, in the future.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[[email protected]]

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.

Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not? If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.

As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.

I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.

Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.
I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.

Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.
--
As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.

A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.

[Sander deWaal]

said:


- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -


It tells me that you don't care for the fact that ears are perfectly
capable of hearing 5 or more separate sources of sound, and that you
may not have ever heard a properly set up 5.1 setup.


Delusions of omniscience noted (© Arny Krueger).

I only listen to music, for which stereo is enough in my case.
I don't need weird, artificial reflections from the rear and a booming
sub to go with it.


Who said anything about weird or artificial? Not that it really
matters, My only concern is, does it improve the experience or not?


Hold that thought, we have that in common..
I get that with tube amps.
Inaccurate, coloring, power-limited tube amps.

And vinyl, of course.


If
you watch a scene in a movie that has jets flying overhead or bullets
flying by, then having the sound travel from front to rear or vice
versa adds to the dram and realism IMO.


Yup.
And I specifically said "listening to MUSIC in the above.

I don't do movies, just Stargate episodes ;-)


As for sub-woofers, they have the same job as other speakers, to
produce the sound that was recorded, nothing more, and there is plenty
of music that has content in the bottom octaves, that makes a
sub-woofer an added benefit IMO.


It certainly can be, when implemented well.
Also, when using cone drivers, it's easier to merge them with a sub
IMO.

I have had severe difficulties in merging my Maggies with several
subs.
In the end, I gave up, and bought two more Maggies.
I now have enough SPL in the lower regions.


When you listen to live music, the sound bounces around the room,
arriving at your ears at different times. Multi-channel recordings are
trying to accomplish the same thing, and I suppose you might say it is
done with various levels of success. If you're happy with simple 2
channel listening, fine, but as the technology moves on, there will no
doubt be improvements in 5.1, 6.1 or whatever number of channels is
determined optimum.


I'll wait for that to happen.
Until then, all of my CDs, LPs and mp3s are two channel.

Also, don't forget that I'm using dipole speakers.


I've heard some very good 2 channel recordings that gave me the
impression that the sound was moving from front to back. Of course
music other than pop/rock, etc. tend not to have use for such things,
but I and probably you listen to more than one kind of music.


Yup, ranging from Bach to breakbeat and inbetween.


Well recorded music in 5.1 is a treat to my ears, it's just a pity
there isn't more of it IMO.


Aye, here lies the rub.
And of the music I have heard that was in surround, it mostly was
either uninspiring effects music, or bad recording.

I don't know if you have any recording experience, but it can be hard
enough to make a fine *stereo* recording, let alone more channels.
Unless one just pans some mics to the rear etc......not my idea of a
good recording.

Most releaes are also film soundtracks, boombastic and unrealistic.
Example: pirates of the carribean..


I do prefer DTS to Dolby though, especially for movies. The scene in
War of the Worlds where the lightening bolts are being observed by Tom
Cruise and Dakota Fanning are much more impressive and tension inducing
in DTS, and the film O Brother Where Art Thou, and Peter Gabriel's
concert videos all sound better to me in DTS.


Films again, just not my thing.
I was addressing good old music here.

Concert videos are even worse: the eye is kept busy, so they can wreck
the audio recording without too much protesting ;-)


Now that you mention it, I *might* not have ever heard a properly set
up 5.1 system.
I only installed many of them, and adjusted them per the manuals.

Ergo: either the manuals are all wrong, or there's something wrong
with the standard.


Or you just don't like it. It's still and always has been a matter of
choice.


That's a very likely possibility.

Let's keep it at that, then.


As with regular 2 channel recordings, the really good ones are few and
far between.


I found there's far more interesting and valuable material in old
fashioned 2 channel, even mono doesn't bother me much.
Listening to music in multi channel just doesn't do it for me.

Let alone have your decoder process a 2-channel signal to match all
speakers...........argh.

YMMV ;-)


A good one IMO is Last of the Mohicans where the extra channels add
depth and give the viewer/listener a better sense of being in the
places where the movie is set.


Movies again..............my arguments are restricted to music only.

For movies, the effect is nice.
The eye is entertained, the ear doesn't protest.

Well, to each his own, I guess.
While I was working at this PC this night, the Maggies were playing
Bach's Brandenburg Concertoes by I Musici and Frans Bruggen.

The listening position is slightly out of the sweet spot when I'm at
the PC, but the enjoyment was there, nevertheless.
meanwhile, I finished a PCB for my new DAC project, and had some fun
reading forums.


--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

[ScottW]

R. Stanton wrote:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B.

IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
seen touted from time to time.
Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
their different....pick A.

ScottW

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 1:52 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.
It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it. Their
complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to hear differences
between components.

The ABX test provides three switches to the subject. He can switch to
A, B or X. A and B are the two components tested. X is selected
randomly by
machine. It is either A or B. The subject listens to A, B and X, then
decides if X matches A or matches B. IMO..the subject should be able to control what source they're
listening to at any time, unlike these mass group test exhibitions I've
seen touted from time to time.
Anyway, if the subject is in control They don't have to A, then B,
then X....the subject could just listen to B and X and if they decide
their different....pick A.

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg droned:

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 7:24 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg droned:

When someone uses just B and X and decides if they are different, than
that person is doing an X-Y test on ABX hardware.How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg has no compunctions about his immoral agenda.

How much experience do you have using an aBx torture box?

Zero experience. I've never even seen an ABX box. I don't do comparison
tests. Not ABX or X-Y. I just write about them! :-)

Why?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

Better than ABX?

"Better" than what?


ABX has become the standard test for comparison
of audio components.

Based on the periodicals that I'm aware over the last 30
years, no manufacture or audio magazine has ever used
ABX in product development or reviews. To imply
"standard" is to denote a battery of protocols in its use.
There are none to date do to a whole raft of
limitations/unknowns.


It is a valid test method, yet many people object to it.

That depends on the application. It is most successful when
differences can be detected as a result of its use. But it is
of no statistical practicality/significance when you generate
null data. Only proving that one can in fact discern the
difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


Their complaint is often: the ABX test makes it too hard to
hear differences between components.

True, but this doesn't necessarily rule out the device. One
must consider the psychological disposition, hearing acuity
and training of the subjects. There are many "standards"
(cross-checks) to limit or isolate the human influence
variable per say, but it is very expensive.


What if someone tries to cheat?

That's why the sample group size is significant.


1) Answers of: "sounds different" to all trials would give
a score of 50% correct.

Ok


2) Answers of: "sounds the same" to all trials would give a score
of 50% correct.

This data is discarded. Only proving that one can in fact
discern the difference is significant (arithmetic evaluation).


3) Totally random answers to all trials would give a score
of of 50% correct.

Ok... or the model wasn't designed suitably for the task
at hand.


A score of 50% correct indicates the subject can *not*
hear a difference. So cheating wouldn't work.

"*not* hear a difference"... an actual difference could
exist but the methodology may not be statistically sensitive
enough to discern it from the data.


I think the X-Y test would be easier on the subject, than the
ABX test, and would give a more accurate indication of
someones ability to hear a difference in the components.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.


LOL!!!!!

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

[Powell]

"R. Stanton" wrote

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison
of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

In home auditioning has always been the "standard"
audiophile response. Beyond that one has to consider
the equipment (source, amplifier, speaker) under
evaluation before determining methodology.

But your question does not consider the human
emotional response ("comparison tests") which is
the ultimate arbitrator... or at least the one most
closely associated with your wallet.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?

Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

[George M. Middius]

LD said:

What is the standard for comparison tests?

Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.

It is precisely because humans "are all different" that audio 'borgism is
the perfect cure for audiophilia. Join the Hive today and become an
indistinguishable (and undistinguishing) drone.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:



We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!


go the full mile why bother with humans at all
they are completeli irrelevant.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 8, 1:57 am, " wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 6, 5:28 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

Better than ABX?

ABX has become the standard test for comparison of audio components.LOL!!!!!

What is the standard for comparison tests?Your ears, your brain, your preferences, your sex, your age, your
genetic make up, your experience. Just like when you receive any other
aesthetic perceptions: different pianos, different flutes etc.. We're
all different, thank God.
Ludovic Mirabel

Your point would be true if we were using audio equipment to test human
beings. (We could do that by reversing the ABX test and check on how
well different people precieve differences in sound.)

We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Your reasoning is completely backwards!

===========================================

If I understand you we're in complete agreement:

You say:
We are discussing here, comparing audio equipment using a human being's
preception as part of the test. We are *not* comparing a human being's
preception with audio equipment.

Just make it more precise by writing "using ONE (instead of A) human
being's perceptions".( I hope you'll not think I'm pedantic when I
correct your spelling).
With results valid for that (A) One human being's set of perceptions
Regards Ludovic M.