Arny Krueger wrote:
> "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]
>
<snip>
Arny, you seem to have comingled my comments with another writer- I've
snipped
that part...
>
>>> 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 sup****ted 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?
BECAUSE in order to do a SCIENTIFIC TEST:
- the test conditions must be known.
- the test's parameters must be known.
- the test must be replicable by independent researchers!
- controls must be in place.
This is basic, no?
>
>> - 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.
So what?
I am saying (again and again) that ABX testing, while a useful tool, is
not
dispositive of any issue whatsever, except to the extent that the
conditions for
a test that uses a *true scientific method* is done AND those conditions
clearly
do not have compromises built-in that skew or alter the results!
Otherwise, the
tests, be they ABX or other means are only valid FOR THAT TEST (if valid
at all).
>
>> 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.
Who cares?
YOU are claiming scientific method and certainty!
THEY are not!
The onus is upon those who claim science and certainty!
I am not sup****ting any method or any point of view in all this.
I am however pointing out the limitations of ABX to this date, since so
many
seem to be claiming that ABX has resulted in certainty of result which can
be
applied and generalized. It can not, in my view.
>
> 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?
BECAUSE THEY POINT OUT WHY EXACTLY MANY OF THE ABX TESTS TO DATE HAVE A
GAPING
HOLE IN THEIR METHOD!!!
Again, Arny, I know this is difficult to quite figure out but I do NOT
have any
prejudice against ABX or *any other testing method*!!! I do have a problem
with
claiming that one tool (ABX in this case) automatically has results that
fully
define these issues (the ones we're talking about).
I'm 100% fine with Dr. Geddes results, since they EXPLAIN a whole lot
about many
many discrepancies between the "low distortion" camp and the "tubes sound
better" camp - and why some "low distortion" amps and other gear sounds
like
*ca-ca*.
Fwiw, Geddes is the second to get these results scientifically - he merely
has
done it most recently, and more definitively.
HE HAS REDUCED THIS TO A USABLE PARAMETRIC TEST. <--- key point, eh??
>
> 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! ;-)
>
So what?
You've got the wrong idea about this Arny.
Since ur his friend, perhaps you should ask him to explain that part of
his
research to you - and mention that I suggested that to you? Which will be
funny,
since I doubt that he thinks of me as being "in your camp" on these sorts
of things.
Even so, his research is solid, his designs very sharp, and on this matter
he
has inadvertently put a major bit of science into the hands of those who
have
long claimed to subjectively note sonic differences (that have long been
denied
by "objectivists")! So, I thank him for reducing to practice what I have
long
held without adequate means to test or otherwise prove!!
Whether or not his speakers sound any good, or I would like them, is
another
matter...! :_)
_-_-bear
|
