"bear" <bearlabs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:foqoi402tkd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Greg Wormald" <greg.wormald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:folrst02p34@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> The very set-up of much ABX testing (which is most often
>>> short segments of music quickly switched), cannot test
>>> for what most music lovers are seeking--long term
>>> enjoyment of music listening.
>> This is a false claim that I've heard on and off for
>> about 30 years, now.
> Well Arny, where is the correlation between ABX tests and
> subjective enjoyment? Don't think there is any...?
ABX tests involve listening, listening is how we get subjective enjoyment.
Why shouldn't ABX tests correlate with subjective enjoyment?
> The ABX is intended and designed to merely yield data
> about audible differences between two variables - nothing
> more.
Do you think that subjective enjoyment from listening to music comes from
some source other than audible features of the music being listened to?
> IF it accomplishes that goal is yet not clear and
> unproven beyond the specific test that took place.
Seems like some words are missing from that sentence.
> In other words the results of specific ABX tests can not be generalized
to
> pertain to every situation.
Of course this is a truism. But how does an ABX test vary in this regard
from any other listening experience?
> While the results *might* be useful or of general use, it is not an
> inherent quality
> of an "ABX" test.
This is true of any listening experience. I hope you are not against the
use
of listening experiences to evaluate audio products! ;-)
> The reasons - as have been debated here many times - are
> multiple.
If an issue has been debated without resolution, then it cannot be used to
resolve a controversy.
>> In fact people have been doing long term ABX tests for
>> about 30 years. The origional ABX Comparator product,
>> had special features to allow tests to survive power
>> outages, in support of long term tests.
>> One of the things that long term ABX tests show is that
>> audiophile mythology about long term testing is just
>> that, audiophile mythology.
> No Arny, that is merely your belief and your conclusion.
So far I am aware of no compelling arguments, no compelling evidence that
suggests otherwise.
> It is not fully supported by any factual basis.
I know of no facts that contradict it.
>>> A goodly number of years
>>> ago I ABX blind tested some interconnects, and then
>>> chose the ones I preferred. Three months later I
>>> realised I was not listening as much or enjoying it at
>>> the level I was previously. I found myself turning the
>>> music down or off. When I went back to my old
>>> interconnects my listening increased to it's previous
>>> levels of enjoyment.
>> AFAIK nobody has ever shown that interconnects can be
>> distinguished sonically using any reliable listening
>> test methodology, unless they were so bad that they
>> cause non-trival frequency response variations. And, if
>> interconnects are so bad that they cause non-trivial
>> frequency response variations, they are by definition,
>> defective.
> This would appear to be a true statement.
> But it is not.
Do tell!
> The reason that it is not true is that the "ABX" tests
> that have been touted as providing this information are
> fraught with unknown variables.
Again that is a position that is at best a subject of unresolved debate.
If
an issue has been debated without resolution, then it cannot be used to
resolve a controversy.
> Let me list a few for the readers:
> - frequency response of the speakers
Why must this be an unknown variable, and why would it be a known
variabile
in a sighted evaluation, but not known when the evaluation is done blind?
> - distortion vs. power vs. frequency for the speakers
ditto.
> - polar response of the speakers vs. frequency
ditto.
> - reverberation time vs. frequency of the room
> etc. etc. etc....
ditto, ditto, ditto.
You see, this is a common mistake. You've raised issues that relate
identically to blind and sighted evaluations.
> EVEN WITH this information, I have yet to read a
> published ABX test that would permit someone to precisely
> duplicate the test. Not enough information is provided.
I know of no published ABX tests that are secret. AFAIK whatever
information
you might relate to duplicating a test, can be obtained from the people
who
performed the tests.
> Show me *one* that has the requisite information and
> controls.
Show me a sighted, non-level-matched, non-time-synched evaluation that has
the requisite information and controls.
Show me an evaluation whose details are published in a high end audio
publication that has the requisite information and controls.
> Dr. Earl Geddes' research - and he is a hardcore
> academician/scientist/researcher - has shown that
> absolute values of distortion do not translate at all to audibility of
> distortion.
Geddes is an advocate of the same kinds of listening tests as you are
criticizing. Why would you use his tests or conclusions as being
authoritative?
You might be interested to know that three of the ABX partners including
myself and David Clark of AES fame attended a Chinese New Years party
given
by Earl Geddes and his wife Lydia Lee at their home last Saturday night.
Dr.
Geddes is a long time friend of ABX and other forms of blind testing, to
say
the very least! ;-)
|
