Summing up
NYO...@peoplepc.com
<out...@city-net.com> wrote in message news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
> We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
> listening alone testing. What is the alternative? If the controlled
> testing is so flawed, as claimed to rationalize results disturbing to
> dearly held beliefs, then the "audition" silliness done by the hifi mags
> must be a couple of orders of magnitude so completely useless as to ignore
> them is the only charitable thing to do.
>
> Let's face it, the subjective enterprise folk haven't a leg to stand on,
> that is the bottom line until or unless evidence to the contrary can be
> provided to the current benchmark that reported differences during
> listening alone blind tests don't rise above random guessing.
>
> It is quickly becoming
> apparent that this is rejected not for reasons of validity used in all
> areas of human research, but because the outcomes are painful and because
> to some there are no conditions under which it can be confirmed to them.
> It
> is a suspension of belief that such can be known and/or the flip of that
> coin that like esp and astrology we know it is true because one chooses it
> to be so.
>
It was clear long ago what some people found painful about bias controlled
listening.
Robert Morein
"nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:%%p%e.6950$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> From RAHE:
>
> <out...@city-net.com> wrote in message
news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
> > We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
> > listening alone testing. What is the alternative?
We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world. We
note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
possess low quality ears and brains.
Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
"Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UrKdnbPRApQ...@giganews.com...
>
> "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:%%p%e.6950$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> From RAHE:
>>
>> <out...@city-net.com> wrote in message
> news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to controlled
>> > listening alone testing. What is the alternative?
>
> We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
> interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a
relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
truth reject it.
We
> note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
> possess low quality ears and brains.
>
How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any of
them.
> Disregard the ABXers. Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.
>
Let's hope they don't adopt that philosophy for pharmaceutical research.
Unless of course you are willing to volunteer as a test subject.
Robert Morein
>
> "Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:UrKdnbPRApQ...@giganews.com...
> >
> > "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> > news:%%p%e.6950$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> From RAHE:
> >>
> >> <out...@city-net.com> wrote in message
> > news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> > We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
controlled
> >> > listening alone testing. What is the alternative?
> >
> > We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while theoretically
> > interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real world.
>
> You sum up wrong as usual, it is the real world that acknowledges ABX as a
> relaible and valuable tool, which is why it is used by every serious
> organization doing audio research. Only audiuophiles who don't like the
> truth reject it.
>
> We
> > note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
> > possess low quality ears and brains.
> >
>
> How would you know, you've never done a level matched, blind test of any
of
> them.
norman...@comcast.net
That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.
Norm
NYO...@peoplepc.com
It's obvious that sighted listening is unreliable.
It's obvious you have no intention of ever putting your ears on the line to
show that you can hear the things you claim.
MINe 109
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote:
Why do I run my main system from a $250 integrated amp?
Stephen
Robert Morein
He PROVES that the ABXers, including you, are liars.
Robert Morein
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:w_SdnS25P7S...@comcast.com...
and twenty years old. They are not expensive.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
DBT comnparisons are relied on by the real audio professionals who are
making a difference.
Robert Morein
says nothing about the ethics of a person. But you, Mikey, aren't smart
enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.
Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
revealing the rot within.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
Do you question the ethics of the BBC? Who are you to question anybody
about ethics, given your lack of same?
But you, Mikey, aren't smart
> enough to be either a professional, an amateur, or even a perceptive
> observer. You are a mere amphibian, the possessor of inferior mental
> equipment, inferior ears, and an inferior amp.
>
Spoken like the coward and bad scientist you are.
> Kudos to Ludovic for peeling away the fake veneer of the ABXers and
> revealing the rot within.
>
Ludovic hasn't a fucking clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
like the facts that it reveals.
Robert Morein
ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects/GuineaPig2/gp_aes_paper.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm
http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.htm
http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone doing
research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some form
of DBT.
Robert Morein
codec quality and distinguishability. Since a codec is an algorithm, rather
than a physical device, there is no way to compare codecs other than with
ABX.
In the case of amplifiers, however, we have actual physical devices. The
deaf and dumb, like yourself, are condemned to substandard amplifiers,
because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
faith. The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not. When
this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
used for amplifier comparison.
In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to synchronous
detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
synchronous detection? You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
ability to detect differences. The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But I
suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.
So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very well,
and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these disabilities.
You truely are "special".
elm...@pacificcoast.net
Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because
I believe you mean well and listen to others.
But....I think that like many others in this society you
believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype.
My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time
perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch.
My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to
there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats.
My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me
the price of (top grade) parts.
I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did
not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy
like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at
home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid
Monument.
Want more?
There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're
listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with
the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in
North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all
other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to
what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will
never be quite
the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a
bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a
system different from mine. Which is fine with me.
I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception
centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince
them away from what they like.
All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever
doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him
and is not "scientific". In particular I object when they tell me that
their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic
research. I know something about that last and objective findings at
the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a
prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal
functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure
makes me feel better"
If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as
long as he does not bully me with it.
Ludovic Mirabel
elm...@pacificcoast.net
Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because
Clyde Slick
Its practically unheard of as to application by
consumers for making purchase decisions
norman...@comcast.net
"Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Sx90f.14935$j%6.8...@newsfe06.phx...
I've run several blind tests in my day, but I will admit that I don't do it
often, and certainly not if it takes enormous effort or has limited
usefulness. I had an opportunity to run a blind test on the concept of
biwiring, having available almost all the equipment to run a reliable test.
I already had substantial lengths of AWG12 and 24 wire; I only needed to buy
AWG18, and my wife had a use for it after the test (if it was white.) Also
available was a pair of Vandersteen speakers, an ideal choice since Mr.
Vandersteen himself strongly recommends biwiring his speakers. The result
of the test was that no difference could be heard between mono and biwiring
until the wire gauge reached 24. Then there was a slight difference--in
favor of mono wiring.
Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted become
minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
to draw any further conclusions from this data.
Norm Strong
Robert Morein
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xdydnX1HaOj...@comcast.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
become
> minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
> blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
> preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
> to draw any further conclusions from this data.
>
> Norm Strong
>
ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.
The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows:
It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point
of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one.
The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.
However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain
can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds
of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can we
assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I
do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work
with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an
extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain. According
to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which
he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget,
many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means that
ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed
in the individual!
The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to
participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full
mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem. It
disables part of the mind as a function of the test.
There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not subject
to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid
concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.
neilk...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
> ABX diminshes that.
Yep.
> But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
> Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.
Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
differences.
(snip)
> In blind test methodology, each sample is
> labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.
The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
The "X" can be any component in the test.
> However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain
> can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
> test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds
> of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes?
Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
and pointless.
(snip)
> This means that
> ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
> discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed
> in the individual!
An ABX test isn't about discriminating between symbols. The subject
being tested doesn't even have to know the symbols.
> The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to
> participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full
> mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem. It
> disables part of the mind as a function of the test.
See my previous comment.
> There should be a form of blind testing that works; one which is not subject
> to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
> sensitivity experienced by sighted observers,
The point of blind, objective testing in audio is to eliminate the
expectations, assumptions, and "sensitivity" experienced by sighted
observers, so that the person doing the listen can pay attention only
to the sound,
> while responding to the valid
> concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.
The idea with blind, objective testing is to eliminate "imagined
differences and imagined discrimination" so that the listener pays
attention only to what that person hears.
elm...@pacificcoast.net
NYOB said:
> >> Ludovic hasn't a fucking clue about the validity of ABX, he just doesn't
> >> like the facts that it reveals.
> >>
> > ABX reveals no facts, only the twisted minds of the believers. Truely, ABX
> > is a pile of hidden, twisted rot.
> >
> That must be why it is so mainstream.
Our sacrificial goat- suicide bomber of the ABX irregulars now
exploades his backpack. Five addresses and a suicide note on the floor:
> http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/projects/GuineaPig2/gp_aes_paper.pdf
> http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm
>http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/chapter6.ht> http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
>
> The problem for idiots like you Bob, is that it's hard to find anyone doing
> research into anything related to audio, that aren't using ABX or some form
> of DBT.
It must be now noted that the question under discussion here is not
the usefulness of DBT in genral - an excellent research protocol when
appropriate- but usefulness of ABX (NOTE!- ABX, ABX, ABX!!!) for the
audio consumer community when listening for differences in music
reproduction between components. This is an audio forum not the
"Journal of Psychoacoustics". But let it be..
I have had long experience with phony references given by desperate ABX
irregulars, They send one on a wild goose chase to sources that have
zero to do with the subject, like BBC etc.
So I check:. For profit and fun..
Reference Nr. 1 "Guinea pig - a generic subjective test system for
multichannel audio
Discusses the authors' research methodology..
ABX referred to in one paragraph- to say it is not as good as their
own preferred method
Not a word about any *results* of comparing components. Not a word
about what exactly was being compared- good old codecs again? "
Reference Nr2: "Amplifier sound- what are the influences."
You may find it hard to believe but this article does not mention once
ABX or DBTs. The subject is listing the theoretical causes for
variability in the amp. sound . Nothing is compared to anything else.
Once again one is left wondering if the whoever inspired our bomber is
an idiot or if he takes the RAO community for idiots. Take your pick
Reference Nr3: " ABC/Hidden Reference Audio Comparison Tool"
>From the preamble: "This is a win32 application written to allow for
blind comparion of multiple audio files."
They prefer ABC/hr to ABX for comparing multiple audio files. Yes
"multiple audio files" whatever on earth that may be in a lab. They do
not seem to stock it in the audio shops.
Reference Nr. 4 " Chapter six- results and analysis"
Quote: "The test subjects were asked to comment on the relative
movement of a centrally located audio image caused by spatially
relocating various bands of the left stereo channel. They were not
limited in the vocabulary of their response, however their answers were
interpreted and entered into 8 different image movement categories (or
combinations of): No Shift, Right, Left, Up, Down, Near, Far, Split.
Occasionally, due to time constraints a few of the trials would be
skipped, which caused some variation in the number of total test
trials".
No comment.
Reference Nr. 5: "CAN WE HEAR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AC POWER CORDS
A BLIND ABX TEST
At last we have something about comparing components. AND ABX too.
Conclusion:
"To many in the engineering community, blind ABX is an accepted
experimental design. Using the blind ABX protocol, we failed to hear
any differences between an assortment of generic power cords and
Nordost Valhalla. Therefore, we cannot conclude that different power
cords produce a difference using the blind ABX protocol.."
Fair enough. Another NEGATIVE "test". The authors being true
researchers continue:.
" However, we also cannot conclude that there are no differences. We
simply failed to prove that differences can be detected to a
statistically significant degree using a blind ABX protocol"
And this ends NYOB's self-sacrificing demonstration that ABX is the
right tool for showing DIFFERENCES between components.
Ludovic Mirabel
Dear NYOB- if you feel again like an obscenity please do it at home.
Robert Morein
<neilk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128374624.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> > <norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:xdydnX1HaOj...@comcast.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
that
> > ABX diminshes that.
>
> Yep.
>
> > But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
> > Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.
>
> Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
> differences.
>
>
> > In blind test methodology, each sample is
> > labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.
>
> The "X" in ABX doesn't represent a particular sample of a component.
> The "X" can be any component in the test.
>
> > However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the
brain
> > can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
> > test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other
kinds
> > of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes?
>
> Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
> symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
> decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
> those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
> prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
> and pointless.
>
However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.
ScottW
Robert Morein wrote:
> <norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:xdydnX1HaOj...@comcast.com...
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Most blind tests seem to work that way. Dramatic differences sighted
> become
> > minor differences blind; slight differences sighted become no differences
> > blind. It appears that knowledge of the setup has a strong effect on
> > preference. That's the way it seems to me, but I wouldn't dream of trying
> > to draw any further conclusions from this data.
> >
> > Norm Strong
> >
> I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and that
> ABX diminshes that. But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
> Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.
You lost me when using collate and Ludovic in the same sentence.
My subconscious processes refused to associate those labels.
>
> The evidence that ABX diminishes sensitivity is very strong, but it is
> difficult to understand why. A possible cause of this effect is as follows:
>
> It is now understood that human "consciousness" as the supposed focal point
> of experience, is actually a fiction. The real mind is the unconscious one.
> The unconscious mind is composed of many subconscious processes running in
> parallel. In order for each of these processes to participate in the
> discrimination of ABX, or any other test modality, it has to be aware of
> which sample it is experiencing. In blind test methodology, each sample is
> labeled with a bland symbol, such as A, B, X, Y, etc.
How would you make any unconscious process aware? If its aware... its
no longer unconscious.
>
> However, the assumption that each of the subconscious processes in the brain
> can work with sample labels of this type is an assumption. Suppose an AB
> test were performed in which the bland labels were replaced by other kinds
> of labels, ie., pictures of fictitious amplifiers, or Picasso nudes? Can we
> assume that the ability of the subject to discriminate would be the same? I
> do not believe this can simply be assumed. The ability of the brain to work
> with abstract symbols, as opposed to symbols evocative of experience, is an
> extremely recent innovation in the development of the human brain.
Bob, Could you please proofread before posting? These longwinded
attempts to appear educated fail miserably when you butcher the content
so obviously.
> According
> to Piaget, this does not occur until approximately the age of twelve, which
> he refers to as "the age of formal operations." Further according to Piaget,
> many members of the adult population never reach this level. This means that
> ABX subjects such individuals to a test that relies on the ability to
> discriminate an abstract symbol, an ability that may not be fully developed
> in the individual!
Do we really need to worry about ABX testing for people who can't
read?
>
> The consequence of the inability of some of the subconscious processes to
> participate in discrimination of abstractly labeled samples is that the full
> mental capacity of the individual is not brought to bear on the problem.
Now I see why you hate ABX... you can't breathe during a test
requiring all your subconscious processes to focus on the test.
> It
> disables part of the mind as a function of the test.
>
> There should be a form of blind testing that works;
How will you decide if it works?
> one which is not subject
> to the obvious failures described by Ludovic; one which preserves the
> sensitivity experienced by sighted observers, while responding to the valid
> concern for imagined differences and imagined discrimination.
So contradictory... a literal catch 44.
ScottW
NYO...@peoplepc.com
Acoustat is substandard? That's how you feel about yours?
> because you have weak ears, weak brains, and hearts corrupted by a bad
> faith.
I have no faith at all. My hearing is fine, my brain, contrary to your
propaganda, also works fine, which is why I know that nobody doing serious
research on any aspect of audio, is using sighted listening evaluations.
This is because they all know that ABX is a very reliable way to get results
for difference.
The use of ABX devices interposes a machine, namely the ABX device,
> which in many or all cases is assumed to be transparent when it is not.
Prove it.
When
> this is the case, as Stereophile determined with Arny's box, it cannot be
> used for amplifier comparison.
>
Of course SP has no agenda and is completely unbiased in their view of ABX.
NOT.
> In addition, there is the question of labeling, as it relates to
> synchronous
> detection. Did you know, Mikey, that ABX poses a problem in the area of
> synchronous detection?
That's a problem for any sort of A/B comparison.
You cannot prove that ABX does not handicap a human's
> ability to detect differences.
You have the burden of proof in this question. Can yo prove that ABX does
handicap a human's abiltiy to detect differences?
The burden is on the believers. But I'll say
> it now: you can't prove it. In your case, you can't prove it because you
> have a low IQ, a weak mind, a limited capacity for original reasoning. But
> I
> suspect it will try the capabilities of competent individuals as well.
>
Still no answer to the question of who isn't using ABX. That makes you a de
facto loser, again.
> So, go on, Mikey. What can you do? You are stupid, you can't hear very
> well,
> and you will spend the rest of your life suffering with these
> disabilities.
> You truely are "special".
>
And still smart enough to know you are full of shit, which makes me smarter
than you.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
<elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1128375344.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX or
some other blind listening protocol?
NYO...@peoplepc.com
sensitivity at all, it's expectation.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
virtually everyone working on audio research..
Clyde Slick
My recollection is that he even more strongly supports bi-amping, and doing
that
with two identical stereo amps, each amp handling the total left or right
side, one side of each
amp upper freq and one side of each amp lower freq for that channel.
BTW, I have Vandersteen 4's, I usually bi-amp them in a more
normal fashion, one stereo amp left and right tweeters left and right
other amp woofers left and right, ppostie Vandersteens recommendation.
When I use single stereo amps, like I am right now, I don't bi-wire them,
for
other practical reasons.
ScottW
It's your BS theory... when do you plan to start testing it?
ScottW
Clyde Slick
Too bad that it does nothing to eliminate "imagined sameness".
Clyde Slick
Maybe, if that's what you expect.
Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation.
elm...@pacificcoast.net
You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
something else.
Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals
, thresholds whatever.
This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to
differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?"
Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do
you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones?
Ludovic Mirabel
NYO...@peoplepc.com
<elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1128392961.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1128375344.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX
>> or
>> some other blind listening protocol?
>
> You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
> they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
> ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
> something else.
Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use
it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.
The point is still that when you search for ABX, you find that it's
discussed in the sense that it is one of only a couple ways of doing
relaible comparisons, you certainly won't find any research people relying
on sighted tests.
> Those who do do it for their purpose: studying codecs, phase reversals
> , thresholds whatever.
> This is an audio forum and the question is: "Is ABX a useful tool to
> differentiate AUDIO COMPONENTS?"
The answer is still yes, even though this is not the original question you
began with.
> Any idiot can dial "AbX" into Google and get a thousand links. Why do
> you restrict yourself to just five irrelevant ones?
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Ask and you shall recieve:
http://www.u-aizu.ac.jp/~steeve/vowels/ICSLP2001.pdf
http://infantstudies.psych.ubc.ca/PEOPLE/JW1988.pdf
http://www.zainea.com/Cyrill.htm
http://www.bell-labs.com/topic/conferences/campfire/abstracts/torres.pdf
http://www.edn.com/article/CA56211.html
http://sail.usc.edu/publications/thanasis-SAP2005.pdf
http://www.music-ir.org/evaluation/wp2/wp1_reiss_sandler.pdf
http://www.hfm-detmold.de/eti/projekte/diplomarbeiten/dsdvspcm/aes_paper_6086.pdf
http://www.vxm.com/21R.45.html
http://www.epanorama.net/links/audiocircuits.html
http://www.aes.org/events/116/papers/z5.cfm
http://www.labgruppen.com/Files/TechNotes/Testing_Procedure_v1.pdf
http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/mue2003/research/rhartman/rhartman_web/
Robert Morein
"In the first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi on
their ability to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated
place-of-articulation continuum."
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Robert Morein
Robert Morein
>
[snip
> >
> Then it's bad science that has beenadopted in one form or another by
> virtually everyone working on audio research..
>
brain?
Thank you so much for including, in your list of citations,
Steven Sullivan
> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> news:1128392961.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> >> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1128375344.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using ABX
> >> or
> >> some other blind listening protocol?
> >
> > You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
> > they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
> > ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
> > something else.
> Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still use
> it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.
Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for
audible difference. He does so explicitly, but it also follows from his
endorsement of *double blind tests* generally (of which ABX is merely one
species) both for subjective testing of audio difference and of
audio-based preference, not only of speakers, but of audio gear generally.
http://www.aes.org/sections/la/PastMeetings/2004-08-31.html
"Sean began by describing three types of listening tests:
* Difference
* Descriptive analysis
* Preference / affective
The difference test, obviously, is used for determining whether two audio
devices under test are audibly different from each other. A common method
is double-blind ABX testing.
The descriptive analysis test is for gathering impressions of comparative
audio quality from the listeners. If an ABX test reveals that device “A”
sounds audibly different from device “B,” the descriptive analysis test
would determine in what way they sound different. The descriptive analysis
test has limited usefulness in audio, though.
And after the determinations of “whether different and how different,”
the preference or affective test asks the question, “Which one sounds
better?”
Each test has its own appropriate and inappropriate applications, as well
as its own strengths and potential pitfalls. In any test, biases have to
be controlled in order to obtain meaningful data. Most of his descriptions
of testing methods involved tests of loudspeakers, but the principles can
be put to use with other audio gear as well."
In Olive's now-classic 2003 paper in JAES, he used a randomized,
level-matched double-blind protocol to compare performance of trained to
untrained listeners in 3- and 4-way speaker comparison tests (e.g.,
comparison of 3 or 4 different speakers per session), using four different
types of musical selection. Presentation time was 10-30 sec for each
lousdpeaker with each program. Switching interval was 3 sec, which Olive
admits is not advisable for smaller differences, he and Floyd Toole found
it not to be a limiiting factor for speaker comparisons....demonstrably
less of one than controlling speaker *position*.
Obviously Mr. Olive endorses ABX tests for pairwise difference, but
obviously too, speakers, unlike audio components that aren't
electromechanical transducers, are reasonably likely from physical and
acoustical principles to *actually* sound different. This assumption is
borne out by his double-blind 'preference' results which show statistical
differences between the speakers tested -- something rather unlikely to
happen in a DBT if the speakers didn't really sound different in the first
place. Interestingly, two of the models that received a 'class A' rating
from an audio magazine scored significantly differently , with one rated
'speaker of the year' scored the lowest among speakers compared by both
trained and untrained listeners, in both three- and four-way comparisons,
involving a total of 268 listeners. This loudspeaker -- an electrostatic
hybrid -- rather satisfyingly also *measured* the worst in several key
criteria.
Obviously, too, ABX is unwieldy for comparing more than two sources and
one variable per session. A matrix of ABX tests *could* have been done
encompassing each pairwise combination of speakers in Olive's experiment,
for each program type, for each listener group, at a *vastly* increased
cost in time and effort with little likely increase in power. With the
DBT protocol he *did* use, Olive was more quickly able to statistically
assess effects of speaker difference, listener difference, and difference
in program material.
Dr. Mirabilis can, and likely will, harp on the fact that the Olive paper
did not use *ABX* in this particular set of experiments. But this is not
because Olive fundamentally disavows ABX tests. Quite the contrary. So,
does Dr. Mirabilis believe that ABX -- a randomized, double-blind,
level-matched protocol for comparing two sources, that often employs (but
does not require) short presentations and short switching intervals -- is
*so* different from the randomized, double-blind, level-matched, short
presentation DBT protocol Olive used to compare more than two speakers, as
to be worthy of special suspicion? Does he understand why ABX was not
used *for this experiment*?
Perhaps he should ask Sean Olive this question next time: if you were to
run a listening test on two high-end components, simply to determine if
they sound different, which test would you use?
--
-S
elm...@pacificcoast.net
A good summary of the hypothetical advantages of ABX .
Two questions: 1) Do you really believe that by covering theeyes uou
"eliminate imagined differences and imasgined discrimination'?
All of them including the effects of exposure to different kinds of
differently conveyed, sex, age, education, high- or lowbrowism etc.
etc.?
2) Medical research is based on "The proof of the pudding is in the
eating" In forty years of its existence not one positive ("Yes, most of
us in this group heard the difference!) ABX component comparison by a
decent-sized panel passed an editorial pencil, however indulgent,
anywhere. Could there be something wrong with the protocol. Or is the
protocol right but all the components sound the same?
Ludovic Mirabel
elm...@pacificcoast.net
A good summary of hypothetical advantages of ABX .
NYO...@peoplepc.com
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dht441$m5u$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> nyo...@peoplepc.com <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1128392961.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> >> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:1128375344.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using
>> >> ABX
>> >> or
>> >> some other blind listening protocol?
>> >
>> > You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
>> > they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
>> > ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
>> > something else.
>
>> Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still
>> use
>> it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.
>
>
> Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for
> audible difference. He does so explicitly, but it also follows from his
> endorsement of *double blind tests* generally (of which ABX is merely one
> species) both for subjective testing of audio difference and of
> audio-based preference, not only of speakers, but of audio gear generally.
>
Naturally, I knew this, I was hoping one of the two idiots might cop to it.
I've heard Mr. Olive speak on the subject along with Floyd Toole at an AES
dinner.
Harman has an interesting set up for doing tests on speaker pairs. The have
several pair on a turntable device, one at each end of the stage. When they
want to compare one pair to another, they can have them on the turntables
and just turn them, and a new pair is set up in short order.
I didn't think they'd abandon use of DBT and ABX simply becuase of the event
that Ludo is so fond of posting.
What he doesn't seem to get is that the reason there are so few positives,
is because there is so little difference.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
persuade everyone to do an ABX or other DBT in order to make their buying
decisions. It only comes up when people make claims of differences that
have no reason to exist. When people claim to hear things that don't make
sense, it's reasonable to ask if they can still hear those things in a blind
comparison. Because such things rarely are heard in blind comparisons, and
because there is ample data on why people hear things under sighted
conditions, that they don't hear during blind comparisons, it's reasonable
to suspect that the differences being heard come from somewhere other than
the equipment.
If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy, there
is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort ABX or
other.
Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying there's
no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks detail, or any
of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and paint it as something
other than what it is, reliable and the standard for detecting difference,
is somewhat more than disingenuous.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_zk0f.87$jw6.13@lakeread02...
knows it's bull shit. He doesn't really beleive it himself, he just claims
it to irritate people because they find him such a fool.
YMMV
NYO...@peoplepc.com
<elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1128403904....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So what? the fact is still that it is used nearly universally in audio
design.
Could there be something wrong with the protocol.
Perhaps, but it is not even close to what is wrong with sighted comparisons.
Or is the
> protocol right but all the components sound the same?
Why is that so hard to beleive, especially when nearly everybody develops
their gear with some sort of blind listening evaluation.
Do you think the BBC got bad results when that had people come and evaluate
speakers for them using ABX? That's the reason they chose Dynaudio speakers
exclusively after realizing how bad their own designs were.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
<elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1128321452.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>> > news:%%p%e.6950$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >> From RAHE:
>> >>
>> >> <out...@city-net.com> wrote in message
>> > news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> > We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if" objections to
>> >> > controlled
>> >> > listening alone testing. What is the alternative?
>> >
>> > We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that, while
>> > theoretically
>> > interesting, has not been implemented in a useful way in the real
>> > world.
>> > note that the believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
>> > possess low quality ears and brains.
>> >
>> > decide.
>>
>> That certainly is one way to approach the issue, but it tends to be
>> expensive. Your heart always seems to prefer the high priced spread.
>>
>> Norm
>
> Norm, I'm always in two minds when contradicting you because
> I believe you mean well and listen to others.
> But....I think that like many others in this society you
> believe that everyone is *equally* a victim of hype.
Speaking for myself, I don't thiink everyone is equally susceptible to hype,
but when you have a tool to fight hype, use it. ABX kills the hype dead.
The fact is also, that there are plenty of people who do beleive the hype
and there is a concerted effort to keep them stupid.
> My watch cost me all of $15. Its been keeping time
> perfectly for the last five years and that's all I want from a watch.
Flat, undistorted sound is all I want from my electronics, and hopefully, it
will someday be as easy to do that with speakers as it is for electonics.
> My car is the small Mazda which gets me satisfactorily from here to
> there. Most of my system consists of 59 year old upgraded electrostats.
> My preamps and amps were made for me by a guru friend who charged me
> the price of (top grade) parts.
> I auditioned things like Jadis and M. Levinson and did
> not care for them at all. Apogee Diva sounded to me murky. Watt Puppy
> like a movie house aggressive speaker that I could not live with at
> home. I preferred by far ML CSL to their (once) top of the line hybrid
> Monument.
> Want more?
> There is nothing wrong with not knowing what you're
> listening to. It removes one source of bias: the urge to keep up with
> the Joneses that (I'm saying it with all due respect) is more common in
> North America than practically anywhere else. It does not change all
> other biases that we all are made out of. I seek a system as close to
> what I hear at the chamber music or symphonic concert as poss. (It will
> never be quite
> the same). That is my bias. I don't have to tell you that most have a
> bias in favour of electronically amplified sound and will prefer a
> system different from mine. Which is fine with me.
> I find that ABX procedure kills my brain reception
> centres in no time. Others feel differently. I do not seek to convince
> them away from what they like.
No you just want them to beleive that a valuable, universally recognized,
relaible tool for finding real difference is a fraud.
> All I'm asking is that they stop saying that whoever
> doesn't use their preferred gimmick does not know what's good for him
> and is not "scientific".
Is it your view that believing and untruth that is foisted upon people for
the purpose of making them pay higher prices is a good thing?
If you wish to know the truth, you use the most relaible method you can for
getting the facts. ABX is one of those methods. Using ABX can and has
revealed differences when they were present at levels different enough to
hear.
In particular I object when they tell me that
> their "yes, no" method has anything in common with medical therapeutic
> research. I know something about that last and objective findings at
> the end, not what the subject ticks off on a piece of paper, are a
> prerequisite, Even in psychiatry the return to society and normal
> functioning is sought not the placebo answer: "Yes doc , this pill sure
> makes me feel better"
> If ABX makes anyone feel better good luck to him- as
> long as he does not bully me with it.
>
>
Nobody is bullying you,, you don't have to use ABX or any othere blind
protocol to buy stereo equipment, there really isn't that much need.
When someone claims a difference where there shouldn't be one, those who
really want to know, will use a blind comparison and live with the results.
It is very notable that so many who claim to hear things that shouldn't be
there, are so unwilling to partake in blind comparisons.
Accept the fact that we know enough about what people hear, and how. That we
can meausre things the ear can't even hear, and that it's possible to tell
in advance of lsitening if 2 devices are going to sound different or not.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
Thanks for being so predictable.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
NYO...@peoplepc.com
Robert Morein
>
> > <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1128392961.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > >> <elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:1128375344.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >>
> > >> So tell me Luddite, where are the serious audio researchers not using
ABX
> > >> or
> > >> some other blind listening protocol?
> > >
> > > You're a bore aren't you? I don't care what the researchers do unless
> > > they are researching my interest in audio like sean Olive does WITHOUT
> > > ABX. I don't know how many use or don't use Abx, prefer ABChr or do
> > > something else.
>
> > Have you contacted Mr. Olive for his views on ABX? I assume they still
use
> > it at Harman, so obviously they have more confidence in it than you do.
>
>
> Sean Olive, like competent scientists everywhere, endorses ABX tests for
> audible difference.
Obviously, ABX has certain applications. As Ludovic has documented, it
minimizes and overlooks differences perceived by many, but not all,
individuals. These differences are important to many audiophiles. Those of
us who do care will not allow you to piss on our backs and call it rain.
That said, ABX does have uses in research and industrial testing. Harmon
International is an international conglomerate that produces a wide array of
undistinguished, cost effective designs. The differences mentioned in this
thread, between speakers, are of the types that could be distinguished by
sighted testing. However, since Harmon markets products in the low to mid-fi
category, they have a need for efficiently presenting their products to
listeners of average ability, and swiftly obtaining results. Harmon is not
in the business of making products that present music with grace and beauty;
they are in the business of commodity electronics.
Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind
audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute,
I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real
violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With
other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would
agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or
have you had similar experiences?
To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence.
If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense. To
point out that ABX is used by Harmon International to rapidly profile their
products cannot be accepted as an endorsement by us. At the present time, I
am unaware of any Harmon products that I would enjoy listening to. I have
always despised their amplifiers. But, hey, perhaps they sound fine to you.
ABX is used as an industrial tool, as a market sampling tool, and as a
research tool for subjects like, as cited by the mckelviphibian, "In the
first study, we compared adult speakers of English and Hindi ontheir ability
to discriminate pairings from a synthetic voiced, unaspirated
place-of-articulation continuum."
We have no argument with that. Just don't piss on our backs and call it
rain. If you can't hear, you can't hear. That's your problem -- not ours.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
My hearing is pretty normal for may age.
Even if you had perfect hearing from 0-30,000Hz, it wouldn't change the fact
that you can not rely on sighted listening for subtle difference.
>That's your problem -- not ours.
The problem is some folks hear things that aren't really there.
paul packer
paul packer
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind
>audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good repute,
>I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real
>violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With
>other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would
>agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or
>have you had similar experiences?
>
>To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
>rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence.
>If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to
point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools".
If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
Clyde Slick
Bullshit. This is an opinion group. If I want to talk about
differences I hear, I will do it without reference to DBT, and I or
anyone else is certainly justified in doing so. We do not have to
have done any DBT's to talk about any of our preferences
or any differences in regard to what we hear.
What you are doing here, Mr. NETAUDIO NAZI, is ordereing us to
prequalify any discussion about our preferences with haviing undergone
DBT's, which is just outright ridiculous.
> If a person picks equipment from a dealer with a decent return policy,
> there is no reason that person couldn't do a blind comparison of some sort
> ABX or other.
>
> Make your purchases based on whatever reason you choose, but saying
> there's no use for ABX or that it is "bad science," or that it masks
> detail, or any of the myriad reasons some people have used to try and
> paint it as something other than what it is, reliable and the standard for
> detecting difference, is somewhat more than disingenuous.
It is bad science, because it only removes the bias towards
one side of the equation.
>
>
Clyde Slick
>
>
> Do you think the BBC got bad results when that had people come and
> evaluate speakers for them using ABX? That's the reason they chose
> Dynaudio speakers exclusively after realizing how bad their own designs
> were.
>
>
lordy!!! If they were that bad, it would have been obvious without ABX!
Clyde Slick
>> Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation.
> An opinion you get to have.
>
And you will keep having your opinion of sameness, DBT or no DBT.
Your bias has not been removed
George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
> >rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence.
> >If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
> Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to
> point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools".
Robert is right and so are you.
> If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
> objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them,
what one person can't hear, none of us can hear.
Robert Morein
you cannot see. When it rains, we put on raincoats. We don't check the U.S.
Weather Bureau to get the official opinion. You piss on our backs and call
it rain. We can tell the difference.
But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow snow.
Robert Morein
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message news:2cs4k1tu76s7tpdse...@4ax.com...
prejudice, in the literal sense, which means to prejudge without facts.
Prejudice is an expression of the personality. A person's personality is the
sum of how he interacts, not just with other people, but with all the other
things in the Universe.
Every human tries to systematize his sensorium. We impose order on the world
because we desperately want to understand it. But the desire for order is
not the same as the ability to figure out what it is. Until the Renaissance,
successes in understanding were rare. Superstition is fully synthetic order,
used by desperate minds to fill the need. Then came meta-systems; systems
to systematize thought, so as to avoid superstition. The idea was to
eliminate prejudice from the process. But any system can be corrupted. We
read in this forum contemptuous replies, in response to attempts to keep
prejudice away from science. In fact, these replies are usually in the form
of base prejudice.
Science is not a completely mechanical process. It is limited by the quality
of mind that applies it. The universe of hypothesis is only as large as the
mind can accomodate. Lesser minds work within a smaller omega, which may not
contain the correct one. If Mikey were to attempt to understand some of the
new work in modern physics, he would have to dimensionally collapse it,
because Mikey lives in Flatland. The same may be true for Mr. Sullivan.
Much has been made of the apparent fact that the limitations of the human
hearing apparatus are well understood, and that the range of performance is
incapable of explaining the "golden ears" hypothesis. The blunt minds of the
ABXers, living in Flatland, take this as proof that golden ears do not
exist. But that's not what it's about. One man can look at a Dutch Masters
and copy it with exquisite precision. Most people with good vision cannot do
this. It's about the brain, and what the brain remembers.
Robert Morein
experiences, as well as those of many others.
You're a pisser.
Robert Morein
Totally.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:43426a6c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out, colorblind
>>audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good
>>repute,
>>I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real
>>violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With
>>other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would
>>agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or
>>have you had similar experiences?
>>
>>To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
>>rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence.
>>If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
>
> Pretty much says it all.
It's all bullshit. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that
doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for
"rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence."
This post should be "stickied" on this NG to
> point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools".
More nonsense. Morein is just exhibiting his own snobbery.
Amplifiers of good repute are amplifiers that don't have audible distortion
and can drive the speakers connected to them. These have been abailable for
a very long time. The emotional connection he talks about ahs nothing to do
with the equipment, and everything to do with emotion, which changes from
moment to moment. I didin't get into and stay involved with audio for the
puirpose of having nice backround music. I didi it because I enjoy music
that is played with passion and recorded by people who care about wha they
are doing. From Brnadeburg Concertos to Beatles to MJQ, to Big Band Jazz,
it has always been about the music and my passion for it.
> If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
> objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
Becuase it's more moronic bullshit from a snobby twit who hasn't got a clue.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message news:2cs4k1tu76s7tpdse...@4ax.com...
>
>
Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander
everybody who knows more about audio than you do?
Robert Morein
>
> "paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:43426a6c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mr. Sullivan, you and Mr. McKelviphibian live in a grayed out,
colorblind
> >>audio world. When I listen to Paganini with some amplifiers of good
> >>repute,
> >>I hear the rosin on the bow; I hear all the exquisite scraping of a real
> >>violin, I have the frisson of the friction of the real instrument. With
> >>other amplifiers of good repute, I don't. I believe Ludovic and I would
> >>agree that the listening experience is different for us than for you. Or
> >>have you had similar experiences?
> >>
> >>To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
> >>rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of
independence.
> >>If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
> >
> > Pretty much says it all.
>
> It's all bullshit. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that
> doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for
> "rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of
independence."
>
Mikey, your mind is too small to absorb the wisdom of the Krell.
Robert Morein
statement. I do not. Suffice it to say, you are person with a weak mind and
a low IQ. You are a "special" person, Mikey; mentally disadvantaged.
Robert Morein
>
> "paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:43426a6c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
> > objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
>
> Becuase it's more moronic bullshit from a snobby twit who hasn't got a
clue.
>
inferiority is very obvious. You have little capacity for independent
expression. Paul is a very good fellow to treat you with compassion.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote
> in message news:2cs4k1tu76s7tpdse...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> paul packer said:
>>
>> > >To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
>> > >rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of
> independence.
>> > >If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
>>
>> > Pretty much says it all. This post should be "stickied" on this NG to
>> > point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools".
>>
>> Robert is right and so are you.
>>
>> > If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
>> > objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
>>
>> Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them,
>> what one person can't hear, none of us can hear.
>>
> I think that, with the rarest of exceptions, beliefs are an expression of
> prejudice,
At least you are consisitently wrong. Beliefs are the way people think
oabout things based on what they've been taught or learned on their own.
Insofar as thir beleifs are correct, that is they jibe with reality, they
are good beliefs, when they don't it because people haven't done the proper
amount of laerning to check that beliefs are right.
Prejudice is not neccessarily a bad thing, biggotry is.
in the literal sense, which means to prejudge without facts.
Something you seem to be making a career out of here.
> Prejudice is an expression of the personality. A person's personality is
> the
> sum of how he interacts, not just with other people, but with all the
> other
> things in the Universe.
>
> Every human tries to systematize his sensorium. We impose order on the
> world
> because we desperately want to understand it.
We don't impose order on the world, we try to get ourselves to not go
against the order of the world. At least the smart ones do.
But the desire for order is
> not the same as the ability to figure out what it is. Until the
> Renaissance,
> successes in understanding were rare. Superstition is fully synthetic
> order,
> used by desperate minds to fill the need.
It's a lazy way to try and understand the things for which the answers are
or were not easily obtainable.
Then came meta-systems; systems
> to systematize thought, so as to avoid superstition.
Thanks to Aristiotle.
The idea was to
> eliminate prejudice from the process.
Funny I thought the idea was to understand the truth of what is, so that we
could work within the bounds of reality.
But any system can be corrupted. We
> read in this forum contemptuous replies, in response to attempts to keep
> prejudice away from science. In fact, these replies are usually in the
> form
> of base prejudice.
>
They are usually from you.
> Science is not a completely mechanical process. It is limited by the
> quality
> of mind that applies it. The universe of hypothesis is only as large as
> the
> mind can accomodate. Lesser minds work within a smaller omega, which may
> not
> contain the correct one. If Mikey were to attempt to understand some of
> the
> new work in modern physics, he would have to dimensionally collapse it,
> because Mikey lives in Flatland. The same may be true for Mr. Sullivan.
>
We live in the world of what is real, while you live in a world that
worships your whims.
> Much has been made of the apparent fact that the limitations of the human
> hearing apparatus are well understood, and that the range of performance
> is
> incapable of explaining the "golden ears" hypothesis.
That sighted listening is crap and tells yo nothing about what is real about
an audio system. There are no golden ears only trained ones and they can be
fooled by expectations.
The blunt minds of the
> ABXers, living in Flatland, take this as proof that golden ears do not
> exist.
It's not a predjudice, it's a matter of the fact that they all seem to find
it impossible to hear things they claim to be able to when they can't see
what is playing.
But that's not what it's about. One man can look at a Dutch Masters
> and copy it with exquisite precision. Most people with good vision cannot
> do
> this. It's about the brain, and what the brain remembers.
>
It doesn't remember music or sound all that well, and if you bothered to
study the subject you'd know this.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
you do.
Your hearing acuity is mostly a figment of your imagination. We could test
it though, but you don't want your fantasy world to cumble around you, so
you blame the messenger, ABX.
> But perhaps you can't, so here's some advice for you: Don't eat yellow
> snow.
>
Not been a problem for me, sorry you had to find out the hard way.
neilk...@hotmail.com
Robert Morein wrote:
> <neilk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1128374624.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> > > <norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:xdydnX1HaOj...@comcast.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I tend to agree with you that people tend to imagine differences, and
> that
> > > ABX diminshes that.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > But I also see very strong evidence, as collated by
> > > Ludovic, that ABX diminishes real differences.
> >
> > Or makes it obvious that the "golden ears" crowd can't always hear
> > differences.
> >
> Don't assume it, Neil. Try to be nonbiased.
Having owned a comparator myself, I do have some perspective on that
subject. Anyway, I didn't say the golden-ears crowd could never hear
differences, just that it's not always possible, despite what many in
that crowd seem to believe.
Audio for many of those folks is just a hobby, they can believe
whatever they like, and I'm fine with that.
(snip)
> > Replacing the bland labels (A, B, etc.) with other, more interesting
> > symbols, might be entertaining, and the "golden ears" crowd might
> > decide that the entertaining labels might make the gear sound better or
> > those folks could attribute whatever subjective expectations they
> > prefer to the test. But I think replacing the ABX labels would be silly
> > and pointless.
> >
> You are assuming that, Neil, and investigation might prove you right.
I'd certainly be open to representing audio gear with nudes, and not
necessarily the Picasso nudes you suggested. The right nudes might make
everything better, not just the sound of audio gear. Heck, given the
right nudes, I'd be willing to forget the audio gear entirely! ;-)
> However, it is bad science to rely on such an assumption.
I just don't see the point of replacing the intentionally bland and
abstract A, B, C, X, etc. labels with labels (such as the Picasso nudes
you mentioned, although I realize that was probably a fanciful example)
with labels that are meaningful in other contexts. Having more
meaningful labels would just confuse things and make it easier for
people to assign irrelevant meanings to the things being labeled.
George Middius
The Bug Eater is feeling neglected.
>> Mainly because to Them, all human beings are interchangeable. For Them,
>> what one person can't hear, none of us can hear.
>Is there some reason you feel the need to constantly lie and slander
>everybody who knows more about audio than you do?
I'll bet I know why you're so whiny. It's because Arnii Krooborg deserted you,
right?
Robert Morein
"George Middius" <George...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:dhuq7...@drn.newsguy.com...
NYO...@peoplepc.com
Are you that desperate for conversation?
NYO...@peoplepc.com
NYO...@peoplepc.com
since I can get identical sound from much lower priced gear.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
>
> "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:DOB0f.9677$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:43426a6c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 03:47:46 -0400, "Robert Morein"
>> > <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
> [snip]
>>
>> > If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
>> > objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
>>
>> Becuase it's more moronic bullshit from a snobby twit who hasn't got a
> clue.
>>
> Mikey, it would be difficult to consider you as an equal.
Certainly not, you're an idiot.
Your mental
> inferiority is very obvious.
Yet you seem drawn like a moth to a flame.
You have little capacity for independent
> expression. Paul is a very good fellow to treat you with compassion.
>
You are a very bad person to wage a war of slander over the fact that you've
been coaught so many times making so many mistakes. What was your family
motto? Wah?
NYO...@peoplepc.com
performance. Things that perform similarly enough, sound indistinguishable
from each other.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
use ABX, they'll stop immediately. Of course that would only be true if
your assumption were correct.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
perceived something in a sighted comparison, doesn't mean it was real. I
beleive he percieved it but it doesn't matter since there was no bias
control. That's not invalidating his experience, that's just a matter of
fact.
Clyde Slick
That's your 'bias' talking.
You haven't done a thing to neutralize it.
Clyde Slick
You don't know that.
tell us exactly what amp DBT's you particiapted in, the number of trials for
each,
and your results, and tell us how that applies to the Krell vs your favorite
mass market amp.
Clyde Slick
They are marketing their shit towards people who can't hear differences
and/or people who are preconceived to believe that there are no differences,
so thay are eternally happy doing tests that confirm and conform to
the biases of their intended audiences.
Clyde Slick
Clyde Slick
You mean "half" bias control. IT does nothing to
control the bias of expectng to hear no difference.
paul packer
>>>To some people, music is a matter of fundamentals. To others, it is a
>>>rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence.
>>>If you do not hear music in this way, what I'm saying makes no sense.
>>
>> Pretty much says it all.
>
>It's all bullshit. I don't beleive there is anyone posting here that
>doesn't look for a setup that doesn't allow for
>"rapturous chorus of harmonics, perceived with some degree of independence."
You mean they're all looking for good sound? No doubt, but "good
sound" has many different interpretations, including treble to clean
your ears out and bass to beat you over the head. Robert is talking
emotional communication, which best takes place when one can get a
true feel for the timbre of the instruments and hear them in a defined
space as opposed to merely being able to recognise them. I've
mentioned elsewhere about the pleasure one can get from a table radio,
and that's fair enough, but it's not the ultimate pleasure that music
as such can provide. You're one of those who's gone probably 95% of
the way towards capturing that pleasure, and for you that's enough.
If exposed to the full 100% you may or may not hear the difference,
but even if you heard it, you probably wouldn't think it worth the
money. However there are those for whom the extra 5% is definitely
worth the money. These are what Robert is calling the "rosin on the
bow" people, those who need to experience that little extra that
transforms great sound into a sense of actually sitting in front of
the orchestra. Yes, I agree that top end equipment is over-priced and
over-hyped, and I certainly don't have the money for it. But I
appreciate the philosophy behind it and don't begrudge anyone who can
afford and who appreciates it the chance to purchase it. Of course
you're saying it doesn't sound any better, but what you mean is, it
doesn't sound any better to you and doesn't necessarily measure
better. Yet thousands of people claim it sounds better to them, and is
that all due to snob value? Are they hearing better sound because they
paid more, because the dealer or a magazine assured them it was
better, or because the amp fascia is shiny metal instead of plastic?
The odds are against it. In this information age, word spreads
quickly. I think if high end was a put-on it would have died the death
by now. Personally I believe "diminishing returns" bites deeply at a
certain point, but that point can be quite high. I recently bought an
amp on Ebay that would have retailed in the US for probably $1200. Not
exactly high end, and I'd be surprised if the next amp up in the line
sounded significantly better, frankly. Yet I can clearly hear the
difference with this amp over my previous "Best Buy" budget amp. Am I
fooling myself? Honestly I wasn't expecting much improvement because
of the budget amp's reputation, but there it was, and how could I deny
it? Now I get a touch of the "rosin on the bow" and understand what a
difference it makes. For me--and obviously a few others on this
NG--that's important. that's important.
Apologies for this rambing dissertation. It probably doesn't make much
sense, but hey, that's how it came out.
> This post should be "stickied" on this NG to
>> point to whenever someone lauds ABX or uses the word "audiophools".
>
>More nonsense. Morein is just exhibiting his own snobbery.
>Amplifiers of good repute are amplifiers that don't have audible distortion
>and can drive the speakers connected to them. These have been abailable for
>a very long time. The emotional connection he talks about ahs nothing to do
>with the equipment, and everything to do with emotion, which changes from
>moment to moment. I didin't get into and stay involved with audio for the
>puirpose of having nice backround music. I didi it because I enjoy music
>that is played with passion and recorded by people who care about wha they
>are doing. From Brnadeburg Concertos to Beatles to MJQ, to Big Band Jazz,
>it has always been about the music and my passion for it.
>
>> If read carefully and properly assimilated, it would skittle all
>> objections--but of course it won't. Why is that?
>
>Becuase it's more moronic bullshit from a snobby twit who hasn't got a clue.
Don't let Robert provoke you into rejecting everything he has to say.
I think you're intelligent enough to appreciate his intelligence, and
it'd be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm stuck for time now and will deal with your middle paragraph in a
separate post.
>
>
>
Robert Morein
Robert Morein
Robert Morein
mentally disadvantaged exponent of the idea that "all sighted comparisons
are useless", and "all amplifiers sound the same." As such, you are hostile
to the hobby that many of us wish to make more popular. But you have a
different mission. You want to tear down everything that is good and
beautiful about hifi, simply because some middle-aged guy in a basement
bonded with you.
By engaging you in dialog, readers see two people: Bob Morein, who is in
love with the sound of good equipment, synergistically chosen, and Mikey
McKelviphibian, a coarse writer, who doesn't spell very well, has a dull
wit, and a tendency to plagiarize. They can choose to sympathize with either
of us. But I believe I'm a better advocate of my point of view than you for
yours, because I see good and truth and beauty, while you see Arny Krueger's
"ABX" box, and horrible QSC amplifiers, and the sameness of the deaf and
colorblind.
I say to everyone out there, come enjoy this marvelous hobby with me, find
the nirvana of fine equipment and fine music, feel your heat beat strongly,
and ignore the dimwit.
Mike McKelviphibian is my "bad example" poster. He's the kid "doing" ABX,
and lost his soul to it. He believes repellant things, hears little, and
follows a false prophet.
Robert Morein
memory. You, as a pinhead, are not part of their world.
elm...@pacificcoast.net
> >
>
> >
> > Do you think the BBC got bad results when that had people come and
> > evaluate speakers for them using ABX? That's the reason they chose
> > Dynaudio speakers exclusively after realizing how bad their own designs
> > were.
> >
> >
>
>
> lordy!!! If they were that bad, it would have been obvious without ABX!
I'm too fed up to ask him for proper reference to BBC ever using ABX to
determine their speaker choice and fed up of doing wild goose chases
in his phantasy -land. See correspondence above for his use of phony
web adreeses that turn out to have nothing to do with the topic. Where
did BBC publish their ABX comparison results and when? Exact relevant
quote with the word "ABX" in it.
I bet you'll wait a long time
Ludovic Mirabel
paul packer
>More nonsense. Morein is just exhibiting his own snobbery.
>Amplifiers of good repute are amplifiers that don't have audible distortion
>and can drive the speakers connected to them. These have been abailable for
>a very long time. The emotional connection he talks about ahs nothing to do
>with the equipment, and everything to do with emotion, which changes from
>moment to moment.
Changes from moment to moment? You mean if one is sitting in one's
favourite recliner listening to a sublime piece of music, one's
emotion is changing moment to moment? Is that in accord with the
music, or just randomly? What you haven't addressed is why Robert may
find emotional fulfilment from one amp and not the other---on a
consistent basis, every night, his mood notwithstanding.
> I didin't get into and stay involved with audio for the
>puirpose of having nice backround music. I didi it because I enjoy music
>that is played with passion and recorded by people who care about wha they
>are doing. From Brnadeburg Concertos to Beatles to MJQ, to Big Band Jazz,
>it has always been about the music and my passion for it.
Fair enough, but why does that rule out the possibility that one piece
of equipment may better communicate that passion than another? Is
everything quantifiable? I'd have thought in this age where science is
nibbling at the very fringes of the phenominal world, that border
where the observable and measurable appears to pass into another
dimension altogether, that you would be a little more open minded
about the possibility of an amp communicating emotion.
Incidentally, it's "Brandenburg" concertos.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
NYO...@peoplepc.com
>
> "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:IPF0f.8434$vw6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:rpu0f.21$jq...@fe10.phx...
>>>
>>> "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xoq0f.9309$q1....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:O0l0f.11$jq...@fe10.phx...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Other people expect sameness, and nothing eliminates that expectation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> An opinion you get to have.
>>>>
>>> And you will keep having your opinion of sameness, DBT or no DBT.
>>> Your bias has not been removed
>> It's not a matter of expectation any more, it's simply a matter of
>> performance. Things that perform similarly enough, sound
>> indistinguishable from each other.
>
> You don't know that.
Wrong again. But hey since you have no worry about expecting things to sound
the same, why not have a go and prove it?
> tell us exactly what amp DBT's you particiapted in, the number of trials
> for each,
> and your results, and tell us how that applies to the Krell vs your
> favorite
> mass market amp.
Ask Stewart, he's already done it. His Krell against a few other amps.
But of course you are surely a better candidiate, since you would have no
expectation the 2 would sound the same.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
aid companies do ABX tests to make sure their products improve or at least
don't get worse. It's the same for other types of businesses as well.
I doubt that anybody targets people who can't hear a diffference since all
the marketing I've seen is in the form of bragging about how good the stuff
sounds.
Robert Morein
Clyde Slick
>
> IOW you don't know what you're talking about. Cel phone makers and
> hearing aid companies do ABX tests to make sure their products improve or
> at least don't get worse. It's the same for other types of businesses as
> well.
>
> I doubt that anybody targets people who can't hear a diffference since all
> the marketing I've seen is in the form of bragging about how good the
> stuff sounds.
>
Duh... Mikey, You keep saying that all competent amps sound the same, so
WHAT DAMN SONIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Stop contradicting yourself.
Clyde Slick
Duh,,,,,Mikey.
Clyde Slick
Clyde Slick
>
> Ask Stewart, he's already done it. His Krell against a few other amps.
> But of course you are surely a better candidiate, since you would have no
> expectation the 2 would sound the same.
>
W\haaht do I care what the deaf Lord Drunkeness cannot hear?
Jenn
pac...@iprimus.com.au (paul packer) wrote:
Well, it's usually "Concerti".
Arny Krueger
> "nyo...@peoplepc.com" <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote in
> message
> news:%%p%e.6950$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> From RAHE:
>>
>> <out...@city-net.com> wrote in message
> news:dhkr5...@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> We see all manner of rhetorical and "what if"
>>> objections to controlled listening alone testing. What
>>> is the alternative?
>
> We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that,
> while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented
> in a useful way in the real world.
Yes, which is why it's still the most popular single
discussion topic on online forums to this day.
>We note that the
> believers in ABX seem to own substandard amplifiers, and
> possess low quality ears and brains.
Note the implicit admission by the author that he has
multiple personality disorder. You should wonder what the
other voices in his head have to say.
> Disregard the ABXers.
At your own risk.
> Listen with your brain, and let your heart decide.
As opposed to listening with your ears, and letting your
brain decide.
George Middius
The Krooborg tries the "McDonald's Argument" to push his religion.
>> We sum up by concluding that ABX is a paradigm that,
>> while theoretically interesting, has not been implemented
>> in a useful way in the real world.
>Yes, which is why it's still the most popular single
>discussion topic on online forums to this day.
I'll bet you believe you scored a point with that one, Turdy. In reality, it
just shows the Normals how intellectually bankrupt you are. You have nothing to
offer about 90% of the audio equipment available in the market today, so you
hide behind the aBxism "everything sounds the same" dogma. And like a true
'borg, you are tireless and infinitely repetitive.
How sad you are, Mr. Shit. You can't touch the good stuff. In fact, you can't
even grasp why Normals might want it. "aBx! DBT! LOt"S!" cry the 'borgs. Sad,
sad, sad.