wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:14:07 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


It is apparent that Mr. Pearce doesn't know what Pinkerton does
in his Garden when no one is looking ...

Is this another example of your idea of rational debate?

Good question. 190 messages. More arguments about how
exactly to run the test, (Pearce vs. Forwarder) what should be tested,
(same et al.), requests for "substantial escrow" (Krueger) till the
usual suspects bored into coma welcome a diversion into TV (in an audio
forum!)
But still no evidence. Mr. Pearce, Mr.
Krueger surely you know what "evidence" is. One of you promotes a
"test" , the other one has a modification of it.
Supposedly the purpose of your test is to
show the audible differences between audio components.

So far it failed to do it. Null, negative
results only have shown up.

Liar.

It is up to you to show that the test will
reliably, with statistical validity allow the audio listeners to
recognize obvious differences: trained and untrained, men and women,
audiophiles and car audio lovers.

It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.

Till you have this evidence the
logical response of those refusing to participate is: why should I
follow your newest protocol just to demonstrate that the guaranteed
result is that another victim subjected to it failed to hear anything
much.



The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype.

Next question: Did you consider the possibility that the
"test" blinds not only the eyes but the ears as well? Don't
explain to me that you see no reason why it should do that. Prove that
it does not!

Prove a negative? The job of proving that hypothesis is up to you.

To please you I looked for components where
differences should be obvious. I proposed loudspeakers: No good- "Too
easy"**. I proposed SET vs. solid state amps. Arny eagerly sidetracks
the discussion into a treatise about inferiority of SET. Who said they
were superior? Not me. In fact I didn't care for them, when I heard
them. But the more inferior they are the better your test should
WORK.showing the difference.. Don't ask me to arrange it for you. I
did not promote it. The onus is on you and Pearce to show that it WORKS
before you ask people to undergo it or worse quote the invariable null
results as evidence that all "well-designed" cdplayers, amps, or
what not sound the same. That is not how experimental, evidential
scientific method works- as opposed to true faith.

Ludovic Mirabel



** Sep 25 2002, 9:36 am To Krueger: Rec.audio.high-end
I suggested comparing top-notch speakers. No one denies that
speakers should sound different. No takers.
Krueger answers:
Too easy. Been there, done that:



You've admitted that you've been to the ABX website and seen the results
of
previous ABX tests that showed difference. That should be enough to
convince you that when the differences are there, they are heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below find the "arguments" that the slight forger NYOB has to offer
in a discussion that seemed serious before the clowns danced in..
Argument #1
Liar.
Argument #2
It is only neccessary to show that when differences are present, that
people
can hear them in a blind test. This has been done and you know it.
Not a QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE to show where and when "it was done" and how
would anyone other than the slight forger " know it"
Argument #3
The only reason the result of comaprsion of wire would have a guaranteed
outcome is because all the hype about differences in wire is just that
hype
The question is for the nth. time. Quote one single published monitored
"test" report in which a resonably-sized listener panel recognised
differences between ANY, ANY, ANY comparable audio components. ANY,
ANY, ANY**

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."

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