Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 1:12=A0pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:d2e1879a-f457-4e31-9159-877006388552@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 4, 12:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ScottW" <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:fcecf7b2-33cf-4de7-b04d-3ce278c792a9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will
Burn =
in
> > > Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> > Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
> > In fact one should listen A - X then B - X repeat as many times a you
> > think is required to decide....if you can.
>
> > However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
> > factor and not an equipment factor.
>
> > ScottW
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---=AD=AD------------------
> > You made two points.
>
> > 1. The problem which Robert Adams discovered is that the trials are
not
> > independent. This throws all statistics out the window.
>
> No it doesn't. =A0Just deal with it. =A0Do an A-X comparison. =A0Then do
a=
 B
> listen to wipe A before a B-X, then an A listen to clear B before
> repeating A-X.
>
> [snip]
>
> Fine for personal use. I have no objection. I would use it, if it were
> available. On the other hand, the ABXers are very statistics conscious,
> citing "statistically meaningful" thresholds of probability, etc.
Adams's
> observation punches a big hole in that.

 No it doesn't.  It raises an issue to be dealt with. Others have
claimed, unjustifiably,
that ABX ignores the need for long listening sessions.  Adams also
seems to punch a hole in that.

>  It makes the results mathematically
> incorrect. The thresholds are skewed in unknown ways.

 With humans as the measurement device, the results are always skewed
in unknown ways.  Drunk vs sober.  Just off the motorcycle and deaf,
tired vs rested, acclimated to a sound vs the virgin ear.  There are
infinite influences on human perception.  Besides, after hearing B,
the memory and acclimation of B won't make X sound less like A except
in memory.  Go back and refresh.  I don't care if you've acclimated to
B, X and A won't sound different in a quick switch of A and B.
BTW, I've got 4 pairs of speakers in my listening room.
No two pair of supposedly identical speakers sound alike with pink
noise.
Yet with music...you'd never know.

> One can't be a partial
> mathematical purist. When doing statistical research, you either do it
> right, or you're just a ****up.

  Bob, if you insist there is nothing between perfection and a
****up...we'll we know where you are.

> There is a difference between "personally
> meaningful" and "publishable." In the latter, one takes responsibility
for=

> the welfare of others.

 I guess that's why you've never been published.

ScottW