[[email protected]]

Powell wrote:
"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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Powell answers R. Stanton
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).

I don't have to tell you that this was pointed out to the ABX crowd
many times before. It never made any difference and it will not make
any now.

There is ongoing attraction in the notion that "science" is on your
side. It showis that what you can not hear does not exist..

Mr. Stanton's "improvements" are a case in point.

Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with Middius.
Rationality has no hope. Ridicule works just a shade better
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com


Against the grain one comes reluctantly to agree with
Middius.

Nonsense - Middius brought you here, didn't he? ;-)

Rationality has no hope.

I take that as being the guiding light of your live, Mirabel.

Ridicule works just a shade better

No matter what works best - self-humiliation is what you've practiced here
the most, Ludo.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Nonsense - Middius brought you here, didn't he? ;-)

Aren't you aware of the vastness of the Great Conspiracy, Arns?

George brought every single person here that despises you. In fact,
we're mostly just his sockpuppets. I know that I, for one, am...;-)

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet