wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?
I count 3 positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

Or do you not count results that come from places that disprove your
assumptions?

There are 2 more positive results he
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
Phono cartridges to phono cartridges should meet your requirements,
no?

There's another one he http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tape.htm


Here's another one: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_caps.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pola.htm

And another: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_md.htm

And here's 7 mo http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_f4.htm

Your question has been answered, there are positive results from ABX
rests
of similar components. You just choose to ignore them, thereby
proving
your
dishonesty.

So now that there's undeniable proof of positive outcomes from ABX
listening
tests, you can stop with that red herring and find a new thing to
bitch
about.
------------------------------------------------------------

Clown-Prince has a question:
"Have you been to the ABXwebsite or not?"
Yes I have; 15 times in the last four years when 14 other chapel
members in desperation reached for this 30 years old website as their
one and only "evidence" and once last year when clown-prince performed
the identical pcavtech. dance routine.
Never mind: the whole charm of the circus clown performance lies in the
audience being familiar with all the steps. He can (and probably
will)repeat his dance as soon as he thinks the memory is no longer
fresh.
So here we go for the nth. time hoping that the readers will be only as
bored as is the writer.
The first comparison made by this ABX trained group was between
amplifiers. They got 3 comparisons right out of 7. Corrects first
They compared Dynaco 400 watt transistor against:
1) 10 watt tubes amps
They comment:"In the comparison of the 10 Watt tube amp vs. a Dyna 400,
two mono non-identical 6V6 push-pull tube amps were paired for left and
right channels. The better tube amp was a home brew with an honest 10
Watts and no controls. Its mate for the day in the second channel was a
Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls
which were set as flat as possible. Its frequency response curve was
not bad but less than flat:
They got this one right. As the chapel says:"ABX rules for uncovering
subtle differences"- like this one between 200 and 7 watts.
2) Paoli60M- whatever that was. No details available. 62% of the
panelists got it right. 38% got it wrong.
Just imagine our scientists' indignation if anyone reported such
numbers as a positive result when comparing eg. cables
3) ARC D120 vs CM Labs CM914a. They comment:
"The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These
speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was
unstable when clipped, which proved audible". And they could hear it!
Even when ABXing! Another feather in our clown's cap.

They got 4 wrong:1) Dynaco 400 vs. something called Swartz40 (20
watts/channel) 2)Dyna 400 vs. something called Tiger B (no details) 3)
Dyna 400 vs. Bose1800 (no details except that it was a Bose), 4)A Crown
vs. a Phase Linear- one'd guess truly hard to tell from each other, ABX
or not.
Next: cartridges. 4 comparisons: 2 right and 2 wrong. They compared
Shure V15III, very "high-end" at the time against 4 different
cartridges. One of the comparisons had the panel consisting of ONE
-repeat ONE- listener. Any editor of any mag. looking at a paper like
that would throw it into the waste paper basket forthwith. Remember
also that ABXing made them report two different cartridges as "same"
when the obvious expectation bias( the chapel acknowledges that
cartridges do sound different) would be for the correct response ie.
"different". And yet they still got 2 comparisons out of 4 wrong.
Next we're reaching the theatre of the absurd: cd players. One right
and one wrong.
First the correct one: Philips 100- 14 bit- the first cdplayer ever
made, a museum piece against Sony advanced 18 bit. They got it right!
Against all odds- especially ABX "testing"
They comment: "The Phillips CD-100 was serial number 345, the first CD
player in the US and only 14-bit. The Sony CDP-707 uses 18-bit
technology while the Panasonic SLS-295 uses 1-bit technology"

The rest of the clownish communication is as expected. They could not
distinguish between a Revox and a Nakamichi tape players. Why should
they?
If you have a sense of the absurd you might enjoy this correct result
by a panel of TWO-yes 2- listeners: Polyprop. vs ceramic caps. They
comment:
"The conditions of this test were extreme and do not represent normal
operation. The experimenters could not confirm any audible difference
between polypropelene and ceramic in many ABX tests under normal
conditions. The condition that produced the above result of a
difference was applying a 3.6 Watt heat source next to the capacitors.
Even though the capacitor test circuit was not enclosed, with the added
heat the ceramics lost capacitance to such an extent that the system's
low frequence response was rolled off by 3 dB at 40 Hz. "

Now "Polarity". Guesses correct twice when a special
training signal is used but incorrect twice when MUSIC is played. The
clown reports it as " two more positive results". I hope someone locks
him up and plays the training signal to him for the next 24 hours.

Next: Source vs a Minidisk copy. Incredibly even that is reported
wrongly by this expert ABX panel when MUSIC is played. But they get it
right with a special "multifrequency signal". Our clown reports it as
another positive test. Add 12 hours of "multifrequency signal" to his
menu in the lock-up.

The last ABX test was done by ONE listener: "Fourth order filter
against wire"
I am happy to report that he could hear 3 (yes three) db difference in
volume at various frequencies. Our clown triumphantly reports it as six
positive ABX results.
For comparison: Pinkerton in his cable challenge wants 0,005 difference
between the cables that are being compared and I, with my elderly ears.
have no difficulty hearing 1db. difference. But then I'm not ABXing.
The whole thing would be a pathetic waste of everybody's time if it
were not rather sad.
This ancient website, which could not meet the most relaxed editorial
standards is the one and only resource of the ABXers. For all the years
of noise that's all they can dig up.Even Nousaine had nothing better to
offer a few years ago.

Ludovic Mirabel
Notice: This is the last time I'm going to sacrifice several hours
poring over this joke in poor taste. In the future if anyone brings it
up again I'll just copy the text above

In keeping I'll requote what I wrote before"
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
Thank your stars that reputable medical drug research these days is not
like its ABX caricature."

Believe it or not, I've actually run and--participated in--a double blind
test of mono v. bi-wiring. This was not an ABX test, it was an AB test.
Could the participants tell whether they were listening to a bi-wired
Vandersteen speaker or a mono-wired one? This test used 33' of wire
having
sizes of 12, 18 or 24 AWG. For each wire size, the question was: can
you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) All
of
these results were what I would have guessed ahead of time based on
electrical theory. IOW, no surprises.

Norm Strong

Norm I'm genuinely puzzled. You start by saying "believe me or not".
Why should anyone disbelieve that ABX sessions are feasible?
I could but hardly think it necessary to ask: how many participated,
how representative a group was it, what were your statistical criteria
etc.etc.
I accept your result. It is another negative result in the negative
null file of ABX results. For all I know it may be that no one would
hear anything else comparing biamping with single-amping.or else that
someone, somewhere might. Hardly a proof that otherl components sound
the same.to everyone on earth. Remember you were not satisfied with an
82% positive result of Greenhill's "golden ear" distinguishing cables.
You're happy that theory supports you but all scientific theory is
based on the experiments as availavle on 22 Jan 2006
Have you had any positive results? With anything in audio
Ludovic Mirabel

The AWG24 results were positive, were they not. This WAS a double blind
test. There WERE 3 people listening (and one to run the test.) The
bi-wired speakers sounded different than the mono-wired ones. My guess is
that the same results would have been obtained for AWG18 wires if I had run
the test backwards. Yes, it's true that I did not pursue the test further,
or with more subjects, largely because the results were what I would have
expected. If they had run counter to my expectations, I probably would
have run additional tests. I leave that task for others.

Norm

--------------------------------------------------------------

Norm, I do not think there is anything to argue about, Your panel of 3
found that: (I'm quoting you):
For each wire size, the question was: can
you
tell the difference between the same speaker bi-wired vs. mono-wired. It
proved impossible to tell for wire sizes 12 and 18. There was a very
slight
difference between the 2 presentations when using AWG24 wire, and the
comment was that mono-wiring sounded better (or at least louder.) .
Reminder: The argument is about validation of ABX method of testing for
difference between audio components. The above is your examplle of
proper research validating ABX/DBT in audio component comporison

If you feel that your panel and you perform a piece test is truly
scientific research good enought o validate a hjypothesis you leave me
wonder-struck,
You felt that Greenhill's "golden ear" who had 82% success in a series
of 90 tests distinguishing between cables ( in 60 out of ninety tests
cables of the same diameter) should be asked to repeat his exploit 4
more times to convince you and you quote your "research" as a positive
result validating the method you approve of.
For your information I approve of blind A/B testing too also as long a
one does not kid oneself that one's result are valid for anyone other
than oneself.
Just imagine that tomorrow someone repeats your comparison and doesn't
hear your "slight"difference" between mono and biamplified
loudspeakers with 24 gauge wire. Who's right you or he?
To repeat myself: :
"Do you want to know what real research is like?. I pickup a random
issue of Canad.. Med..Assoc. J. (Febr.1'05; 72(3); 335-341) ."A
randomised,
double-blind, placebo-controlled,.trial of amoxicillin for.acute otitis
media in children"
You know how many subjects? 512
Outcome: "Amoxicillin (an antibiotic L.M.) had a modest, about 9%
better cure rate at 14 days L.M.) over
placebo".
This kind of validates DBT in serious drug research, no?
Ludovic Mirabel