On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
times.

paul packer said:

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
word.

Arnii has a mind-meld with his DAW, an advantage not available to mere humans.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
that you don't have direct access to.

The Big Lie.
You are not listeneing to that equipment.
you are using other equipment to
listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment

Clyde Slick said:

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
that you don't have direct access to.

The Big Lie.
You are not listeneing to that equipment.
you are using other equipment to
listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment

Arnii's catalog of sound snippets is hardly comprehensive. To claim that
you can get realistic information about the actual equipment used to
generate those sound files is as ridiculous as the notion that duh-Mikey's
IQ is over 130.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
times.

You forgot that Arny doesn't have $600 to spare.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Nathan Stohler wrote:


Clyde Slick wrote:

oh, you forgot something:
There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
for consumer choices.

Who claimed otherwise?

Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
the *same sound* as Y.

That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
price are not correlated -- could certainly be
a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
are two others that commonly factor in.

And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
read in sources they trust -- be it a general
consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
a source that sets itself up as an authority
in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
feel they have *gained* useful information
by reading reviews, test results,
and ratings from such sources, even though they
are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
different?

S. Sullivan
____________________________________
Sullivan asks:
Why would ABX results be any
different?
Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
does not do was ever done
On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
"There is no difference between the components tested' All and
everyonef them.

This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
ABX tests ,and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
wrong, all wrong, and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
long-term comparison). This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.

Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
suffice to objectively establish that reported
differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
in the products under test. For taste tests, they demonstrate that
the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
or recordings.

Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
assume these negative results don't mean anything'.

DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.

Agreed, or not?
___________________________________________
You say:
This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
ABX tests ,
So we're back to "lies" again. In my book what you're listing
is called disagreements but I can see why you would put the argument
on the usual "objectivist" level out of old habits.
I'll tell you what I'll do. Enough caviling ,though I rather like
this Fowler word- and so must you since you repeat it n times. (By the
way just in case you want to use it again; it is "caviling"- one
"l" only)
Enough as I said. - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me
for the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After
30 years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?
But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ? They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs. Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something?
Sorry to insist but I still miss any other links to the positive ABX
listening trials in distinguishing one component from another. You can
say "lie" a hundred times but...
You continue:
and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
wrong, all wrong,
No, no; wrong order. That comes under conclusions at the very end when
you still refuse to disclose your secret links to the positive ABX
testing.
and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
long-term comparison).
Don',t recall complaining. Recall saying that listening to a snippet
A,
then snippet B, then snippet X and then trying to compare X with my
recollections of A and then B fries my brains It seems there are some
others with same problem. Or am I all alone?
This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
Yes I'm a sophist as well as a liar. Virtue is your specialty,
Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
suffice to objectively establish that reported
differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
in the products under test.
True. If you manage to get a positive one. Which seems to be a bit of a
problem. If you get a negative one you might feel uncertain if things
were really all the same or if the "test" had yet to establish
that it works: how, when, for whom? I must also interject that DBTs
are one thing , ABX another. DBT does not equal ABX. Medical research
would go 60 years back without DBTs. So far it managed without ABX
For taste tests, they demonstrate that
the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
or recordings.
If positive etc, etc...
Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
!00% agreement. This is indeed progress. Please don't go back on
it..: "Negative results don't mean anything". Bravo.
DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
Agreed, or not?
Read what S. Olive has to say about it and forget "difference'
Looking for it seems to be a hurdle for most people.
Just aim to decide if you like one better than the other.
Preferably blind of course- especially if not absolutely certain. It is
just common sense not any great scientific discovery...
For the rest I wish I could agree, honest I do. DBT in medicine has
been researched, questioned and re-researched again . We know its
limitations, we know when to use it and how. And yet often there is
wide disagreement if the result was a false positive, or a false
negative. No such validation is available for ABX *as a tool for
comparing music reproduction* by audio components . In particular we
don't know when a negative outcome is a false negative and how to
avoid it. And since most people seem to be getting negatives only why
should they bother to get a meaningless or worse a misleading negative
result. At present ABX bears same relation to DBTs as Christian Science
to medicine.
Its use in research on narrowly defined tasks is another matter. I have
neither expertise nor interest in it.
Ludovic Mirabel
In your reply could we dispense with "lies" and other childish
personal attacks. As you know I can take it and give it but honestly
I'd rather not do either. I can think you're mistaken but I don't
even for a moment think you're lying





--
-

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
roups.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in:
Message
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ps.com
Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the
1999 exchanges between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in
which Krueger argued at great length that ABX testing
should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.

Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven
Sullivan has made such use of the test they so strongly
advocate to others.

Typical Atkinson scrambling of the facts.

I do not "scramble the facts," Mr. Krueger. I merely state
truths that you and others find uncomfortable.

I just explained how this works a few weeks ago, and now
he's obviously forgotten what I said.

Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.


yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

On 19 Nov 2005 20:52:45 -0800, wrote:


Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Nathan Stohler wrote:


Clyde Slick wrote:

oh, you forgot something:
There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
for consumer choices.

Who claimed otherwise?

Of course there could be something to be gained, if one
has the wherewithal to do ABX, or any other bias-controlled
listening test -- the distinct possibility of finding that
one needn't spend X number of dollars more, to get
the *same sound* as Y.

That knowledge -- that in this instance, sound and
price are not correlated -- could certainly be
a factor in a purchase. Features and appearance
are two others that commonly factor in.

And as for ABX tests done by someone else --
consumer choices are routinely affected by what they
read in sources they trust -- be it a general
consumer watchdog like Consumer Reports, or
a source that sets itself up as an authority
in a particular area, such as Stereophile. Or
even a Usenet poster. Consumers often
feel they have *gained* useful information
by reading reviews, test results,
and ratings from such sources, even though they
are 'second hand'. Why would ABX results be any
different?

S. Sullivan
____________________________________
Sullivan asks:
Why would ABX results be any
different?
Because it has never been shown to be the right tool for use in
deciding what component to buy. No basic research in what it does or
does not do was ever done
On the contrary every published report of panels using ABX resulted in
"There is no difference between the components tested' All and
everyonef them.

This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
ABX tests ,and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
wrong, all wrong, and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
long-term comparison). This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.

Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
suffice to objectively establish that reported
differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
in the products under test. For taste tests, they demonstrate that
the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
or recordings.

Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
assume these negative results don't mean anything'.

DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.

Agreed, or not?
___________________________________________
You say:
This is simply a lie, one that you keep propounding. When called on
it (e.g., pointed to positive ABX results on the Carlstrom site),
you immediately begin cavilline what constitutes 'published'
ABX tests ,
So we're back to "lies" again. In my book what you're listing
is called disagreements but I can see why you would put the argument
on the usual "objectivist" level out of old habits.
I'll tell you what I'll do. Enough caviling ,though I rather like
this Fowler word- and so must you since you repeat it n times. (By the
way just in case you want to use it again; it is "caviling"- one
"l" only)
Enough as I said. - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me
for the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After
30 years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?
But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ? They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs. Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something?
Sorry to insist but I still miss any other links to the positive ABX
listening trials in distinguishing one component from another. You can
say "lie" a hundred times but...
You continue:
and then you begin cavilling that it's 'ABX' testing that's
wrong, all wrong,
No, no; wrong order. That comes under conclusions at the very end when
you still refuse to disclose your secret links to the positive ABX
testing.
and then you begin cavilling about staw-man
definitions of what ABX testing is (e.g., that it does not allow for
long-term comparison).
Don',t recall complaining. Recall saying that listening to a snippet
A,
then snippet B, then snippet X and then trying to compare X with my
recollections of A and then B fries my brains It seems there are some
others with same problem. Or am I all alone?
This is sheer sophistry.m And you've
engaged in it,a nd been called on it, repeatedly.
Yes I'm a sophist as well as a liar. Virtue is your specialty,
Conceptually, a well-done level-matched double blind protocol will
suffice to objectively establish that reported
differences or preferences are indeed due to the claimed differences
in the products under test.
True. If you manage to get a positive one. Which seems to be a bit of a
problem. If you get a negative one you might feel uncertain if things
were really all the same or if the "test" had yet to establish
that it works: how, when, for whom? I must also interject that DBTs
are one thing , ABX another. DBT does not equal ABX. Medical research
would go 60 years back without DBTs. So far it managed without ABX
For taste tests, they demonstrate that
the preference or difference was really due to the flavor of
the foods, not due to beliefs about the foods; for audio tests, they
demonstrate that the preference or difference was really due to
sound of the components or recordings, not beliefs about the components
or recordings.
If positive etc, etc...
Negative results strictly interpreted, indicate that the
hypothesis of real difference has not been proven. However,
in science that does not mean that the hypothesis
remains just as likely as its negation. Science obviously doesn't
interpret negative results from good experiments
as meaning 'well, it's still probably true; I'll just
assume these negative results don't mean anything'.
!00% agreement. This is indeed progress. Please don't go back on
it..: "Negative results don't mean anything". Bravo.
DBT and level-matching are the the *generic* requirements
for this, and different species of DBT -- ABX, ABC/hr, etc --
are more or less appropriate for different situations and questions.
Agreed, or not?
Read what S. Olive has to say about it and forget "difference'
Looking for it seems to be a hurdle for most people.
Just aim to decide if you like one better than the other.
Preferably blind of course- especially if not absolutely certain. It is
just common sense not any great scientific discovery...
For the rest I wish I could agree, honest I do. DBT in medicine has
been researched, questioned and re-researched again . We know its
limitations, we know when to use it and how. And yet often there is
wide disagreement if the result was a false positive, or a false
negative. No such validation is available for ABX *as a tool for
comparing music reproduction* by audio components . In particular we
don't know when a negative outcome is a false negative and how to
avoid it. And since most people seem to be getting negatives only why
should they bother to get a meaningless or worse a misleading negative
result. At present ABX bears same relation to DBTs as Christian Science
to medicine.
Its use in research on narrowly defined tasks is another matter. I have
neither expertise nor interest in it.
Ludovic Mirabel
In your reply could we dispense with "lies" and other childish
personal attacks. As you know I can take it and give it but honestly
I'd rather not do either. I can think you're mistaken but I don't
even for a moment think you're lying


yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:08:33 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the
word.

Arnii has a mind-meld with his DAW, an advantage not available to mere humans.



yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:30:47 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to audition equipment
that you don't have direct access to.

The Big Lie.
You are not listeneing to that equipment.
you are using other equipment to
listen to a sound file made by, in part, using that equipment

Arnii's catalog of sound snippets is hardly comprehensive. To claim that
you can get realistic information about the actual equipment used to
generate those sound files is as ridiculous as the notion that duh-Mikey's
IQ is over 130.


yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:32:06 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:37:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not at all. I noted what you had said at that time, which
confirmed my statement that you do not use ABX or even
PC-ABX tests when it comes to spending your own money on
audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

It's impossible to fly to Europe? That's funny - I've done it multiple
times.

You forgot that Arny doesn't have $600 to spare.

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry in this matter
are sad to see...especially as his own journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that its readers
endorse such testing, even though it is extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't needed
because consumers don't do them.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't need to,
because they're already done.

Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:29:02 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

O guess Paul that as usual you can't put two and two
together to get four.

Condescension, Arnie? Shame.

I'll spell it out for you Paul: It's hard to use ears to
evaluate products that you don't have access to, until
you first buy them.

I gain my access to products I'm considering in the
dealer's listening rooms.

As if that's a representative way to evaluate audio gear.
:-(

And then I listen to them.
Eventually, after listening a good while, I say, "I'll
have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that the best
you can do on price for that?"

There's really only one right way to evaluate speakers, and
that's in the room where they will serve you.

That's the big advantage of PCABX - you can use it to
audition equipment that you don't have direct access to.

Audition? Perhaps you and I have a different
understanding of the word.

No doubt, because I try to evaluate the equipment under
consideration and just the equpment under consideration.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
needed because consumers don't do them.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
need to, because they're already done.

Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

And now you know why I read Weil's posts and pass them by.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed my
statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX tests when
it comes to spending your own money on audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s of
times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer use? Why
have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have (correctly)
pointed out to you the impracticability of such testing under
such circumstances, if you now admit it is as "impossible"
as "sprouting wings and flying to Europe"?

Again, you make my point for me: that despite your powerful
public advocacy of ABX testing, you don't make practical
use of such testing. Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:47:33 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I gain my access to products I'm considering in the
dealer's listening rooms.

As if that's a representative way to evaluate audio gear.

Well, it's representative of how a vast majority of people evaluate
audio gear.

And then I listen to them.
Eventually, after listening a good while, I say, "I'll
have that one please." Or more likely, "Is that the best
you can do on price for that?"

There's really only one right way to evaluate speakers, and
that's in the room where they will serve you.

Fortunately, you still get the chance to do that. Odd that you don't
know how that works.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
needed because consumers don't do them.

Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
homes that have already been done by other competent testers.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
need to, because they're already done.

Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
be a accurate? I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.

Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable. I"m sorry that
you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
Mr. Sullivan.

And now you know why I read Weil's posts

Maybe you shouldn't, Arnold

On 20 Nov 2005 06:07:02 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:


Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed my
statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX tests when
it comes to spending your own money on audio components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a big
point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to Europe.
Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s of
times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer use? Why
have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have (correctly)
pointed out to you the impracticability of such testing under
such circumstances, if you now admit it is as "impossible"
as "sprouting wings and flying to Europe"?

It's hard to tell, due to Arnold's butchering of the language, but I
think that "doing either" refers to "sprouting wings" and "flying to
Europe". I first took the interpretation that you made, but then I
realized that due to his inability to get even the simplest thing
correct in the English language, it was more likely that he was
referring to those two events, as he would be unlikely for him to say
that using ABX for the purposes of buying audio gear was impossible.

Again, you make my point for me: that despite your powerful
public advocacy of ABX testing, you don't make practical
use of such testing. Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

I'd have to agree. It's also ridiculous. I think that they've stuck
themselves into a box that they can't get out of and now they're just
mindlessly posturing.

John Atkinson a écrit :

Neither does Mike McKelvy, neither
does Steven Sullivan. This is both peculiar and hypocritical.

Considering the scope of these specimens are you sure it is an argument
? ;-)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:45:31 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:


Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit.

What's new kiddieface

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:21:03 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


. I first took the interpretation that you made, but then I
realized that due to his inability to get even the simplest thing
correct in the English language, it was more likely that he was
referring to those two events, as he would be unlikely for him to say

Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit. :-)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:45:03 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 23:45:31 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:


Sorry, Dave, didn't quite get that last bit.

What's new kiddieface

Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
THAT TAPE!

Off you go, Phil. Get that tape posted immediately .

dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
needed because consumers don't do them.

Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
homes that have already been done by other competent testers.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
need to, because they're already done.

Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
be a accurate?


You're missing the point entirely.

I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.


The point is, if one wants to explore objective reality in audio
by means of measurements, then *someone* has to do good bench tests.
It can the be consumer, or another agency.

But indeed, bench tests alone don't *necessarily* tell the whole story
in all circumstances for all components --
depending on what is being measured and how the
measurements are done, they can show differences that
won't likely be audible, or miss differences that will be.
It has taken decades, for example, to develop good metrics for how a
loudspeaker will 'sound', and the work is still ongoing.

This is where good *listening* tests come in -- they provide
the second, independent line of evidence that good science
likes to see.

I'm hardly alone in advocating exploring objective reality
in audio by a *combination* of measurements and listening tests.
Citing loudspeakers again, it's what Floyd Toole's group
used while working for the Canadian government, and still
use at Harman. Psychoacousticians also routinely gather data
from measurement and from listening tests. We as audio consumers
have agencies such as Stereophile which do more or less
comprehensive bench tests. But where are the listening tests of
comparable quality?


Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable.

Just because you've failed to understand what the argument is,
doesn't mean the argument is undefendable.

I"m sorry that
you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
Mr. Sullivan.

Be clearer about what sighted tests are useful *for*. They're too unreliable
for any critical work requiring discrimination by *sound*...
otherwise scientists would be happy to use them, since they're so much
easier to set up than blind tests.

For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer wanting to know
'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing looks, costs,
and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
objectively reliable and useful.


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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 06:48:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:47:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Mr. Atkinson's disingenuous accusations and sophistry
in this matter are sad to see...especially as his own
journal seems to find
bench test reportage useful, and seems to assume that
its readers endorse such testing, even though it is
extremely unlikely
that they could perform them at home.

Why would they NEED to, if it's already been done?


If I propose that DBTs for exploring objective reality in
audio are a Good Thing for consumers, you say they aren't
needed because consumers don't do them.

Nice switch of topic. My comment wasn't about DBTs, which I happen to
think CAN be useful, just not exclusive for making a choice. No, my
comment, as I suspect you already know, is the foolishness of
wondering about consumers' nonability to perform bench tests in their
homes that have already been done by other competent testers.

If I note that bench tests for exploring objective reality
in audio are considered a Good Thing for consumers ,
but consumers don't do THEM either, you say they don't
need to, because they're already done.

Well yes. Why should they? Do you think that they're going to get
different results? And if so, do you think their results are going to
be a accurate?


You're missing the point entirely.

I happen to think that bench tests can be useful as
PART of an evaluation process. However, anyone who buys exclusively on
the basis of a bench test deserves what they get.


The point is, if one wants to explore objective reality in audio
by means of measurements, then *someone* has to do good bench tests.
It can the be consumer, or another agency.

But indeed, bench tests alone don't *necessarily* tell the whole story
in all circumstances for all components --
depending on what is being measured and how the
measurements are done, they can show differences that
won't likely be audible, or miss differences that will be.
It has taken decades, for example, to develop good metrics for how a
loudspeaker will 'sound', and the work is still ongoing.

This is where good *listening* tests come in -- they provide
the second, independent line of evidence that good science
likes to see.

I'm hardly alone in advocating exploring objective reality
in audio by a *combination* of measurements and listening tests.
Citing loudspeakers again, it's what Floyd Toole's group
used while working for the Canadian government, and still
use at Harman. Psychoacousticians also routinely gather data
from measurement and from listening tests. We as audio consumers
have agencies such as Stereophile which do more or less
comprehensive bench tests. But where are the listening tests of
comparable quality?


Your clown training is proceeding nicely, I see. Get
to work on the 'who's on first' routine and try it out
here when you're ready.

Give me a break. You are defending the undefendable.

Just because you've failed to understand what the argument is,
doesn't mean the argument is undefendable.

I"m sorry that
you've painted yourself into the McKelvy corener with your advocacy
and non-use of ABX, but that's *your* problem, not mine. Until you get
it through your head that sighted tests can be useful, even as you
presumably use them yourself, you'll just be another bellowing ****,
Mr. Sullivan.

Be clearer about what sighted tests are useful *for*. They're too
unreliable
for any critical work requiring discrimination by *sound*...
otherwise scientists would be happy to use them, since they're so much
easier to set up than blind tests.

For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer
wanting to know
'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing
looks, costs,
and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
objectively reliable and useful.


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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...


For the same reason, they aren't *objectively* useful for the buyer
wanting to know
'for sure' if two things *sound* different, or which one *sounds* better.
They may be subjectively useful, in that they make the buyer feel better
about the purchase, or validate a buyer's preconceived notions about the
component -- but so is a good sales pitch, regardless of its
truth-content. I've emphasized *sounds* because of course 'sighted'
evaluation also gives the buyer lots of information about how the thing
looks, costs,
and what options it offers. And that sort of information can be both
objectively reliable and useful.


sighted listening tells you what it sounds like
when you know what you are listening to.
Of course, that is the way we normally use our audio equipment.
DBT will do you fine, if you wish to perpetually
hide your gear under a blanket and never know what brand and model it is.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:57:07 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

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

Or audio fundamentalists such as yourself.

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
use?

The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its
just that no commercial entity has picked it up as a means
of demonstrating products for sale.

Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
(correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
Europe"?

The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test
files, not any problem with the procedure.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
use?

The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its just that no
commercial entity has picked it up as a means of demonstrating products
for sale.

Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
(correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
Europe"?

The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test files, not any
problem with the procedure.

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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

I noted what you had said at that time, which confirmed
my statement that you do not use ABX or even PC-ABX
tests when it comes to spending your own money on audio
components.

Atkinson, it makes just as much sense for you to make a
big point out of my inability to sprout wings and fly to
Europe. Doing either is equally impossible.

So why, then, Mr. Krueger, have you posted literally 100s
of times that ABX testing is appropriate for consumer
use?

The PCABX procedure is appropriate for consumer use, its just that no
commercial entity has picked it up as a means of demonstrating products
for sale.


The day that PCABX is appropriate for consumer
use is the day that people start
buying wav files
of 2 seond snippets of castanet sounds.
Then they can use PCABX to help them decide which
wav files to buy.

Why have you so vehemently ridiculed those who have
(correctly) pointed out to you the impracticability of
such testing under such circumstances, if you now admit
it is as "impossible" as "sprouting wings and flying to
Europe"?

The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test files, not any
problem with the procedure.


Not to mention a complete lack of consumer interest!

John Atkinson wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
oh, you forgot something:
There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
for consumer choices.

Who claimed otherwise?

All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
even mentioned it?

Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
length
that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.

Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test are probably also
aware that when competently made amplifiers/receivers are compared
under proper listening conditions, there is really no audible difference.

If one is already aware of this, then why would he need to ABX equipment
when making a purchase other than to prove what he already knows?

The ironic thing is the people who dismiss ABX testing as useless are the
ones who might benefit from it. For some reason though, they need to know
the brand name, price, reputation, etc. of the equipment they are listening to in
order to give it a proper evaluation.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:22:50 -0600, Nathan Stohler
wrote:


John Atkinson wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
Nathan Stohlborg is on the case!
oh, you forgot something:
There is nothing to be gained by using ABX
for consumer choices.

Who claimed otherwise?

All of the hypocritical 'borgs did, that's "who". Why do you think somebody
even mentioned it?

Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
length
that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of purchase.

Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

Probably not. For all of the above.

You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
reply to George.

You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
can't be Jewish.

Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.

And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
*technically* I'm not even THAT. chuckle

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.

dave weil wrote:

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

Probably not. For all of the above.

You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
reply to George.

You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
can't be Jewish.

Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.

And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
*technically* I'm not even THAT. chuckle

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.

Yes, Stohler is German.

I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
in second grade.

The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
familiar with the clever insult.

Nathan Stohler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Mr. Stohlberg should browse the Usenet archives for the 1999 exchanges
between Ed Shain and Arny Krueger, in which Krueger argued at great
length that ABX testing should be used by consumers at the point of
purchase.

Yet neither Mr. Krueger, nor Mike McKelvy, nor Steven Sullivan has made
such use of the test they so strongly advocate to others.

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test are probably also
aware that when competently made amplifiers/receivers are compared
under proper listening conditions, there is really no audible difference.

This is unproven. Remember, null results from blind testing cannot be
taken as having a generalized meaning. The only meaning that can be
taken from the null results of a specific test is that under the
specific
circumstances of that test, no difference could be identified to a
statistically significant level. There is no causal relationship
between
those results and the results of any other blind test. And as I have
pointed out before, those who claim that _all_ blind tests have
produced null results can only make that claim if they disqualify the
results of blind tests that _did_ produce statistically significant
identification.

If one is already aware of this, then why would he need to ABX
equipment when making a purchase other than to prove what he
already knows?

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because
an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_ products
will
produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are necessary."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:00:05 -0600, Nathan Stohler
wrote:



dave weil wrote:

"Mr. Stohlberg"? Are you implying that I'm Jewish? If so, is that intended
to be humorous?

Probably not. For all of the above.

You were called a borg by Mr. Middius. JA probably just thought it was
your name and accidentally misspelled it in the haste of composing his
reply to George.

You, like me, have a nice strong Aryan name and I'm sure that you
can't be Jewish.

Oh wait, *I'm* Jewish. Sorry.

And I lied. My last name is actually a nice strong Aryan WORD. The
name is actually a nice Alsatian Jewish name, although there are some
German Weils floating around, and my great-grandfather was certainly
quite German, at least until he emigrated to Arkansas. The story
really became interesting when my dad married my Southern Baptist
Arkansas mom. So you see, even though I was raised a Jew,
*technically* I'm not even THAT. chuckle

Seriously though, I think you're being a bit overreactive here.

Yes, Stohler is German.

Yes, I know.

I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
in second grade.

The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
familiar with the clever insult.

Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
don't you think?

I couldn't tell about your motives though, since I'm not familiar with
your posting history. In fact, this is the first time I've actually
seen your name, in *any* form.

Tschuess!

John Atkinson wrote:

My apologies for misspelling your name, Mr. Stohler. My mistake.

If it was an honest mistake, then no apology is necessary. I thought you were
perpetuating the whole "borg" thing, which I find annoying and childish.

The argument is circular. In effect, you are saying: "I believe that
because
an ABX test produces null results, _all_ ABX tests of _all_ products
will
produce null results. Ipso facto, no ABX tests are necessary."

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Mr. Atkinson, although your magazine no doubt delivers useful
information to your readers, it also contains quite a bit of pseudoscience,
or, to be blunt, crap. It's hard to take you seriously when your magazine
peddles such things as:

- Cable cookers
- Shakti stones
- Quantum purifiers that strip quantum noise energy off the electrons?!
- Hallographs (thin pieces of wood that dramatically affect the sound by being in the room)

It's hard for me to tell whether you really believe in this stuff, or if the
advertising money is just too good.

dave weil wrote:

I wasn't offended or anything. "berg" or "borg", it doesn't matter.
I just wish I had thought to do something so clever as intentionally
misspelling someone's name. Oh wait, I think I did do stuff like that...
in second grade.

The handful of posts I've made on this newsgroup have all been
responded to by Mr. Middius, calling me "Stohlborg," so I am
familiar with the clever insult.

Well then, I guess your attempt to paint Mr. Atkinson as a possible
anti-semite was just *your* "clever" insult. AND a bit disengenuous,
don't you think?


Easy, easy! I wasn't trying to paint Mr. Atkinson as an anti-Semite.
If I'd known that it was an honest mistake, I wouldn't have made a
comment at all. Yes, I was being disingenuous in that I assumed he
meant "borg", so I took a cheap jab at his spelling mistake.



I couldn't tell about your motives though, since I'm not familiar with
your posting history. In fact, this is the first time I've actually
seen your name, in *any* form.

I haven't posted here very many times, so I would've been easy to miss.

Nathan Stohler wrote:

Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a receiver or amplifier?

Should have read:

"Could you direct me to documentation of a positive identification made
from a properly executed ABX test on a pair of receivers or amplifiers?"

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
Nathan Stohler wrote:


My point was that those who accept ABX as a valid test
are probably also aware that when competently made
amplifiers/receivers are compared
under proper listening conditions, there is really no
audible difference.

This is unproven.

So is the opposite.


Remember, null results from blind
testing cannot be taken as having a generalized meaning.

Remember, so-called positive results from a highly-flawed
listening methodology such as sighted evaluation are even
worse-off.

Not only do the results of sighted evaluations totally fail
to have a generalized meaning, they have no relevant meaning
at all if sound quality is the most important thing.

(paul packer) said:

Hello, Phil. What are you doing in this dark place where bears roam?
I'd have thought you'd have enough to do over at aus.hi-fi POSTING
THAT TAPE!


Is he still rambling and raving about that taped conversation with
Patrick Turner?

Sheesh Phil, get a life already.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Arny Krueger" said:

The impossibility is based on a lack of availabity of test
files, not any problem with the procedure.


Tell me how to make sound files available of my hybrid amps, and I'll
send you some.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005