wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in
question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was
preference. Which one sounded better and why?

This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound
different.
The illogic of your argument is too obvious and makes your credibility
suspect.

ScottW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottW. said:

He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in
question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was
preference. Which one sounded better and why?

This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound
different

"The bearing on the validity of ABX ...etc." is your inference.
You're not quoting.me.
: Olive was testing loudspeakers not the ABX validity. He simply did
not want ABX as his testing method. He does not as much as mention it.
But if the reason for not ABXing is because we know that loudspeaker
will sound different when exactly will you ABX?

When you don't know if they sound different or not.

Olive (from your original post) "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?" "

That is not a question for ABX.

I do wonder by what method he demonstrated the speakers were measurably
subjectively different? Why don't you review the paper and get back to us
on that.

ScottW


What is the point of
ABXing only where "science" ( RAO "science") tells you'll hear
no difference anyway? Shouldn't ABX be validated by showing that
indeed it will show differences where even our "scientists" agree
that differences do exist? Basic science isn't it?
Yes , I agree that the fruitful question to ask is: 'Which one do you
like better?" rather than "Which one is different from which one?".
But he did his testing blind and in addition to prefernce measured
"performance" and showed that people distracted by worrying about
"difference" do much worse than when asked "Like or not"
question.
This is how I read his results. This is how I do my own comparing.
How many times did I read: " To have the preference you must first
recognize the difference"? And how many more times: "ABX is the THE
test for recognition of SUBTLE differences.?
"Subtle" my foot!
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in
question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was
preference. Which one sounded better and why?

This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound
different.
The illogic of your argument is too obvious and makes your credibility
suspect.

ScottW
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottW. said:

He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in
question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was
preference. Which one sounded better and why?

This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound
different

"The bearing on the validity of ABX ...etc." is your inference.
You're not quoting.me.
: Olive was testing loudspeakers not the ABX validity. He simply did
not want ABX as his testing method. He does not as much as mention it.
But if the reason for not ABXing is because we know that loudspeaker
will sound different when exactly will you ABX?

When you don't know if they sound different or not.

Olive (from your original post) "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?" "

That is not a question for ABX.

I do wonder by what method he demonstrated the speakers were measurably
subjectively different? Why don't you review the paper and get back to us
on that.

ScottW


What is the point of
ABXing only where "science" ( RAO "science") tells you'll hear
no difference anyway? Shouldn't ABX be validated by showing that
indeed it will show differences where even our "scientists" agree
that differences do exist? Basic science isn't it?
Yes , I agree that the fruitful question to ask is: 'Which one do you
like better?" rather than "Which one is different from which one?".
But he did his testing blind and in addition to prefernce measured
"performance" and showed that people distracted by worrying about
"difference" do much worse than when asked "Like or not"
question.
This is how I read his results. This is how I do my own comparing.
How many times did I read: " To have the preference you must first
recognize the difference"? And how many more times: "ABX is the THE
test for recognition of SUBTLE differences.?
"Subtle" my foot!
Ludovic Mirabel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our logician quotes Olive ::

"....therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker
do they
prefer, by how much, and why?" "
And says:
That is not a question for ABX.

You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat)..
All you have to do now is to convince the ABXers. To repeat myself :
How many times did I read: " To have the preference you must first
recognize the difference"? And how many more times: "ABX is the THE
test for recognition of SUBTLE differences.?
"Subtle" my foot!
As for the methods Olive used I have little clue and less interest. I
just repeat his results trusting his reputation. I'm not in
psychometric research. If you are, do me a favour find your Public
Library at last and read the article. I'm not your reporter nor your
teacher.

This exchange is getting very boring and typically of Rao becoming a
competition in inanity. . I don't have the stamina for endless
nit-picking. Do me another favour, get back to lurking the the
undergrowth. Let's say you won.
Ludovic Mirabel