On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:32:01 -0800, bear wrote
(in article <fp9k1h01hrv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> 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.
Some people can't "hear". They will likely not detect any differences
between
components. Many others won't hear. They are so tied to their preconceived
notions that even if such tests proved them wrong, they wouldn't admit it,
even to themselves (like those who insist that all amplifiers, preamps,
and
CD players sound the same, or that there is no difference between SACD and
Redbook CDs).
>
> 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.
This is where I do not understand you. As long as nothing else changes
except
the device under test the rest of the system simply isn't that im****tant
to
the test. Sure the rest of the system must be good enough in the first
place
that a difference, if it exists, can be detected. I wouldn't, for
instance,
try to evaluate the effect of interconnects using a $50 amplified pair of
computer speakers. But assuming a decent set of speakers reasonably good
amplifiers and signal sources, if you switch cables and the sound of the
system doesn't change to the point where no one on the listening panel can
statistically, reliably tell which set of cables is which, then I would
have
to deduce that there is a high probability that no difference between the
sound of the two interconnects exist.
>
> 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?
To me you aren't doing a very good job of explaining it at all, but I
think I
finally understand what you are saying. Basically, I think you are saying
that just because no difference between two components was detected using
set-up "A" (due to such factors as room acoustics, speaker distortion,
frequency response, etc) doesn't necessarily mean that differences don't
exist and won't be detected in set-up "B" with different room acoustics,
different speakers etc. All this time I thought you were saying that
speaker
distortion, frequency response and room acoustics would affect different
amps, preamps, interconnects, or signal sources differently in the SAME
system during the same test. Is that what you are getting at? If so I am
in
complete agreement and we would have saved a lot of time and bandwidth if
you
had just said that at the beginning. Put it down to miscommunication.
|
