wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
uncover audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
signals can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT
will not uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent
amplifiers sound the same, what is meant is that the differences between
audible outputs is small enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished
by ear. What it does NOT mean is that the signals are identical, or that
you will be equally happy with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
proven by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to
show up. If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how
familiar they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm
afraid I'll have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with
one than the other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong

That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root of the matter.
However, there is one further test, the only one that would satisfy me. Put
the DUTs in equal size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No fancy testing
gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable containers.

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

And answer as above

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2 signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"


Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music. I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.
Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You quote me:
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"

And answer as above

No, it hasn't, nor was it ever intended to. All DBT can ever do is
uncover
audible differences in 2 signals. The equipment generating the 2
signals
can be wildly different, but if there's no audible difference, DBT will
not
uncover it. When the statement is made that all decent amplifiers sound
the
same, what is meant is that the differences between audible outputs is
small
enough that it cannot be reliably distinguished by ear. What it does NOT
mean is that the signals are identical, or that you will be equally happy
with either component.

How about long term satisfaction? Just because you fail to uncover
differences in a DBT does not rule out differences that will show up only
after prolonged listening. If this is really true, it can be easily
proven
by running the DBT after the time when the difference appears to show up.
If nobody can pass a DBT under any circumstances, no matter how familiar
they are with the sound of the components in question, then I'm afraid
I'll
have to say that they sound the same. You may be happier with one than
the
other, but it isn't because of sound.

Norm Strong
----------------------------
You quote me and answer (see hidden text)
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"


Dear Norman,
I believe that before two can argue sensibly they have to agree on
definitions- otherwise they are talking past each other.
I am not arguing about DBTs. I shall not repeat what I said in the
original message but if you look at it once again you'll see that I
believe DBTs were and are indispensable in research. I dare say that I
was DOING DBTs before you ever heard the name.
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

I am still waiting for experimental evidence that it is so but
so far I found nothing. And I researched it using the Public Library
and two excellent bibliographies that were published
two years ago in RAHE.
In addition I issued repeatedly asked for references (JOURNAL, volume,
year, authors, title, page) in the RAHE and RAO and got answers like
that:
1) "There are many. Why don't you look them up". But no address
and no quote.
2) "There are too many to list. Research it".
3) Misleading time-wasting references to sites that do not even mention
ABX (like BBC or B&O.
Enough of this fruitless topic

I do not understand what exactly is your point about doing DBTs
Yes, it is all about audible signals. I buy audio to listen to the
audible musical signals. If I ever listen blind is to find out which
one of the two or three components approaches most closely my
experience of live music as played by so -called acoustic instruments
and as sung by unamplified human voice.
In other words I listen to find out which one I like better.
Don't you? Are you in research? If so RAO or RAHE is not the right
forum for it and the way you describe your research would not qualify
anywhere outside your home.
Your results are YOUR results. They are of no significance whatsoever
to anyone else unless you prove to them that your taste your musical
preferences, your experience and your recommendations parallel theirs.
You're then a respected audio critic for those who are after the same
kind of musical reproduction as you.
Sean Olive in his web presentation showed that differences between
individual DBT performances are enormous. One of his panelists did so
poorly that was quietly dropped and did not appear in the next test
series.

Which is part of the reason for proper training of listeners.


Now a quote from Sean Olive. Note what he says about listening for
preference:
", I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and
why?"
Exactly.
Ludovic Mirabel

Which is why ABX is not used for speaker comparisons other than for things
like xover changes within a given speaker system.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


That's an interesting test that comes closer to the root
of the matter. However, there is one further test, the
only one that would satisfy me. Put the DUTs in equal
size, equal weight black boxes. Leave them at the
subject's house, so that he can switch them at a whim. No
fancy testing gear, no switches. Just indistinguishable
containers.

This has been done. Tests done this way were not found to be
more sensitive than short-term tests.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Mickey cries in the darkness.

ABX

Nearer my god to thee....

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

In rec.audio.opinion dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
roups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.


Because 'Stereophile' is a consumer with limited access
to gear for comparison, nor the equipment for proper level matching
and ABX switching?

I seriously doubt *that's* the reason. Then again, *reason* doesn't
seem to be your strong suit, does it?




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
groups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are, looney.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion John Atkinson
wrote:

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


And where is your evidence that the differences your writers
report -- often in terms not at all *subtle* -- are
anything other than faith-based?

You can't argue for science on the one hand, sir, and then
ignore it on the other. At least, in anywhere else
but audiophile-land you can't.


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.

However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.
It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can hear
things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there when
listening in non-bias controlled situations.

Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction and
then ignore any evidence to the contrary.

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
egroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for pleasure.

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.


See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.


He's still trying to deal with "intelligent design".

Not likely. That's audiophool kind of science. Start with a conviction
and then ignore any evidence to the contrary.


See what I mean, folks!!!!
If killers ironed.

George would be well dressed.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
legroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and other
forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people can
hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are there
when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that people
can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things that are
there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
then so be it.


Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!

The Bug Eater explains why he's terrified of submitting to aBxism torture
rituals.

... I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get.

By your own admission, that "information" includes neither aBxism "tests" nor an
actual audition.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you have no idea what a good stereo sounds
like.


..
..

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most people
aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

dave weil said:

... I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

That's fine for you and us other Normals, but Mickey is handicapped by not being
able to distinguish good sound from bad using only his own brain. That's why he
has to resort to specs.

This seems to be a pattern with the 'borgs. Their class envy is reinforced by
their inability to hear the finer points of audio reproduction. So They react to
Their own failure by attempting to drag all the Normals down to Their level of
deafness. Sad, really.



..
..

dave "deaf" weil wrote :


I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it.

Why do you waste your time, deaf-man ? ;-)



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people aren't. I get informationthat is real world and tells me how a
device is going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any
deviation from flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you,
then so be it.


Your defense is "I know, because I read it somewhere that
simple FR amd distortion specs tell me exactly how a unit sounds, so I
don't have to do DBT and I don't have to even listen to the unit.'
Talk about religion!!!!


You are also suffering from reading comprehension problems, since I said
nothing of the kind. My choices are based on being able to get information
from techs who work on audio equipment and test it to see if it performs up
to spec. Knowing what is audible is also a part of my choices. Since it is
a fact that differences that are small enough can't be reliably detected, I
also incorporate that into my decisions. I also listen and do some blind
comparisons although not as rigorous as a full blown DBT, since after a few
tries and not being able to hear a difference, I stop.

This is still a much more reliable way to choose equipment than simply
listening and letting any and all outside influences interfere with what I
hear.

Since you can't demonstrate that sighted listening is in any way reliable
for subtle differences, and that it can and does lead to hearing things that
aren't there, you have to dis any reliable method or else you are admitting
that every decision you made could have been completely and utterly without
merit.

Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:44:34 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:35:44 GMT, wrote:

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them becaus their house of cards would come
crumbling down

Hey, just as I said...same reason as you. Your "house of cards" is
terrering on the brink at the moment.

I don't know what house of cards that would be, since I make my audio
choices on the best, most reliable infomation I can get. The only reason
I've not done any ABX testing is because I'm in a position that most
people
aren't. I get informationt hat is real world and tells me how a device is
going to perform. I know what the FR is and how much if any deviation
from
flat there will be. If that's a house of cards to you, then so be it.

It IS, because I happen to think it's important to actually AUDITION
something before I buy it, or even comment on it to others.

So you DON'T understand that doouble digit distortion is a problem and that
it is gross enough that a DBT of any sort would be unneccessary.

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except CD
players.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way, then
listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.
High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.

wrote in message
ink.net...



BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


It's not about evidence, its about opinions and preferences.
This IS NOT a scientific endeavor.

Then why bother with measurements or reviews at all?
Either the meausrements mean something or they don't.


I'm not particularly interested in the measurements.
AS far as the reviews, they are good for marrowing
down the field of units under consideration, pointinig
me in a direction, as whether or not to seek out a unit
and audition it, or to ignore the unit. But not of
particular use in making my decision to purchase.


However, one may feel free to point out errors
in the science of objectivisits, not that the
science is particularly relevant.

It's relevant to people who don't want to be mislead by emotion and
other forms of bias. Since there is ample psycological data that
people can hear things that aren't really there, or not hear things
that are there when listening in non-bias controlled situations.


We deal with that every day in the real world.
I don't particualrly want to remove those factors.
One wouldn't audition a speaker ina vacuum, so to speak!


Again, if you are going to compare do it in the most reliable way,
then listen for pleasure.

Best to listen for pleasure to a unit auditioned by listening for
pleasure.
Not according to the research. But you already knew that.

The research is on other, irrelelvant topics.

How is how humans hear, irrelevant?
How is what we are able to hear irrelevant?
How is the psychology of hearing irrelevant?


Its not relevant to my selection of equipment.
Waht is relevant to my selection is if I like the music that comes out of
it.

What is irrelevant is sighted listening. It opens you up to all sorts of
non-existent sounds.


Which I will invariably begin hearing again, once the DBT is over.

Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey:

BTW, I do listen to lots of audio equipment and everything I buy, except
CD players.

Why buy cd players if you aren't going to listen to them?

Maybe Mickey uses them to squash bugs.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:27:50 GMT, wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The argument is about the hypothesis that the ABX protocol is the
appropriate tool for differentiating audio components reproducing
music.

And you have offered nothing that shows it is not.

John Corbett offers a convincing argument in another thread (see
message ) that in cases
where the difference being tested for is small, ie, even trained
listeners, will not reliably detect it 100% of the time, statistical
theory indicates that at least 80 trials are required. As the ABX
tests you keep referring to use very much less than this
number of trials but do involve subtle differences, I think the onus
is on _you_, Mr. McKelvy to show that the evidence is as
strong as your faith would have you believe.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

And I think the fact that ABX and other forms of DBT are accepted by
virtually everybody doing audio research, the onus is on you to show
why
they should not be using such methods.

Possibly the same reason that YOU don't *actually* do them.

Not likely. They don't so them because their house of cards would come
crumbling down, and their reviewers would be seen for what they are,
looney.

Your reason being that you are stupid and lazy.
Why because I know what bad sound will come from equipment that measures
horribly?


You haven't done ANY such tests, at any time, with any equipment
comparisons,
at all.

And therefore I can't possibly understand that such tests are valid and that
sighted listening is a waste of time in most cases?

The reason I haven't done anything other than some cursory blind comparisons
is because I know what I know about aduio equipment.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
link.net...



Face it, in the world of SS audio equipment, most thngs do sound the
same.


most mass market amps sounds vaguely similar to each other, sharing a few
basic faults
in some combination of amounts.

High end ss amps can sound fairly different, and there are many, many
disappointing
ones, expecially considering the prices. Usually, bipolar amps sound
different to me
than MOSFET amps. The few ss amps I liked were bipolar.

I have never heard a SET ss amp.

I don't think there is such a thing as a Single Ended Triode Solid State
amp, but I could be wrong. I can't understand why anyone would want to make
such a thing, but then there are tubed Cd players.

I find much more variation is sound with ss cd players/DACS.

TAC online has a review of a DAC that is very complimentary and that says it
is an improvement over other DACs.

High end and mid fi cd players sound a lot
better than they used to.
Even sighted, I can't tell one CD player from another, nor from a DVD player
playing a CD.

Those are your unsupported beliefs and you are welcome to them. Is there
any data that you can provide other than anecdotes to back them up.