Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

I believe that:
1) My judgment about the relative qualities of and
differences between audio components is preferable to
yours, sighted, blinded or ABXed. No doubt you believe
the reverse. And that is exactly how it should be.

Finally, evidence that you can discern even one thing that is
excruciatingly obvious, Mirabel.

2) I believe that getting blinded when comparing is a good
idea: it helps concentration and deals with one MINOR
facet of a thousand possible biases tied to a thousand
personality characteristics.

From the word "Minor" I see that it didn't take long for you to veer off
course again, did it? Sad.

3) Knowing that Joe whose
taste and preferences I despise compared something in
audio blinded while Tom, whose taste I respect, saw what
he compared will not make me prefer Joe's choices.

Shows that Mirabel and get the idea that a good comparison involves an
absolute standard such as the proverbial straight wire in audio.

4) I'm inclined to think that memorising A, then B and then
comparing both with X is an impossible task for many
people.

Mirabel, perceiving your cluelessness about audio takes only a slight
inclination towards audio.

It is for me.

That's probably due to of your obvious paranoid hysteria related to the
possibility of learning something about audio that might make you
uncomfortable, Mirable.

I may be wrong.

"May"??? LOL!~

Who knows?. No decent research work was reported
to show that this method *works* ( ie. helps most audio
consumers to recognise differences between comparable
audio components) .

If you elevate the standards for "decent research" to impractical levels
then at least you can tell yourself that you are right.


And as years have been passing by it
is less and less likely that this basic job will ever be
done.

Something about people's lack of enthusiasm for proving something that
obvious.


5) I'm also inclined to think that a "test" for
component differences/preferences that works for all and
one of millions of different brains is a pipe-dream


Tests like this seemed to work well enough for perceptual coding techniques
such as AAC and MP3. If you haven't noticed zillions of consumers are fine
with good implemenations of them.

6) That does not diminish my respect for your ingenuity.
Your ABX may be a valuable training method in *paying
attention* . It certainly does no physical harm to its
practitioners. Whether it is a good idea to make them
think that if the can not hear something it does not
exist for anyone is another matter.

Surely you meant to write:

Whether it is a good idea to make them
think that they can not hear something that does not
exist for anyone is another matter.

Which reveals much about how bogus your basic philosophy is, Dr.

Krueger, you will not succeed in sidetracking your lack of evidence
that your test is worth a penny for showing differences between audio
components by:
1) hoping that I'll begin to exchange with you niceties about "paranoid
hysteria". It does sound sort of desperate, almost paranoid, almost
hysterical doesn't it.?
2) flying off at a tangent into gossip about. "perceptual coding
techniques" such as AAC and MP3". I don't care and I don't want to know
abt. these or the craters on Jupiter. This is about audio components.
*You* can have MP3. You deserve each other.
3) emitting a lovely scientific assertion: "This is obvious". As
obvious as the flatness of the earth?
I suggest you ponder what a real researcher Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "
And he did not use ABXing in his loudspeaker comparison test. Why don't
you do just that and show the world that your panel does at least as
well as his?. Just a little bit of *evidence* would do you no harm. You
know; just a slight addition to "obvioussness" to convince other than
yourself. No hypothesis stays controversial for decades once there is
evidence. Like evidence for instance that the earth is not flat that
they taught you at school. Very little controversy about that
Ludovic Mirabel




: