Re: setting up ABX tests at home

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:46:29 -0800, bear wrote
(in article <fp588l01ah1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> 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?

It's also simple. Take any system, take one component in that system  and 
switch it for another of the same type and listen for differences. Test 
conditions are known because the only thing changed from one component to
the 
next is the component under test.  All else is the same for both.