Sonnova wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:43:08 -0800, bear wrote
> (in article <fp582c01a2c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> Sonnova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:17:08 -0800, bear wrote
>>> (in article <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.
>>>>> Th
<massive snip>
>>
>> _-_-bear
>
> I realize that this is usenet and people write stream of consciousness
and
> for brevity, and often people don't get the points across that they are
> trying to convey due to poor wording, omitting certain facts by accident
or,
> occasionally out of purposeful obfuscation. Here, to paraphrase an old
Amos
> 'n Andy radio routine "either I'm not hearing what you are saying, or
you
> aren't saying what I'm hearing." either way we don't seem to be
> communicating. In any substitution test, you are listening for the
> differences between two different components of the same type, whether
that
> be two preamps, two power amps. two speaker systems or two
interconnects. If
> the listeners cannot detect any difference between the sound of the two
units
> under test in a statistically meaningful manner after X number of tries,
then
> there are NO differences.
Only if you say there are "no differences detected in this test."
It does NOT mean that there are no differences, or that said differences
can
never be heard. This is where we diverge, in specific.
We also may diverge on the issue of the effect of doing the test itself on
the
perception of listeners. We may not, depends...
I say you can not generalize as fact from any ABX test. Only can one say
that
there is fact as to the result(s) of a given test. THEN we must examine
closely
the test conditions - which seems to never take place, although the
ABX'ers seem
to want to take the position of being "scientific." Here we diverge also.
The rest of the system OTHER than the units under
> test, MUST be identical for both units. You can change out only one
variable
> at a time. If the rest of the ancillary equipment is the same for both,
then
> any differences perceived must be differences between the two components
in
> question, because they are the only two variables. All else being the
same,
> these red herrings (if I understand what you are saying correctly) about
room
> acoustics, speaker distortion, etc. are irrelevant because (unless you
the
> speakers are the devices under test) they are the SAME for both test
samples.
> If I switch between two preamps, for instance, and hear a difference,
then it
> is clearly the preamps which are different, because nothing else has
changed
> between the listening of one preamp or the other and the preamp cannot
change
> the characteristics of either the room or the speakers.
Such a test is VALID ONLY FOR THAT TEST. And, ONLY if you ACCEPT the
suitability
of the test method itself (the effect upon listeners... as mentioned).
In such a case I do not have any problem. The claims have to be denoted
appropriately.
Must I repeat this over and over in order for the simple issues to be
understood?
I understand completely the ABX method(s)... we've been discussing it for
at
least a decade here... time to get past this overly simplistic belief in
its
infallibility and suitability for generalization of test results.
It is a useful tool that may or may not yield useful information -
depending on
how it is used! Nothing more.
_-_-bear
|
