Is ABX finally Obsolete

[arnyk]

I think it's pretty obvious ABX is obsolete!.

That's obvious. The real question is whether facts and reason will change your mind, or if this is something that you hold so tightly that it can't possibly be changed.

At least it got us thinking about blind testing.

Depends who the us was. When we developed ABX we were already thinking about and doing blind tests.

And that some of our sacred beleifs might be wrong.

I am struck by the oddness of beliefs about audio that would be sacred.

The problem of course is that it's voluntary.

If something being voluntary is a problem, then about the only things that are non-problematical are things like death and taxes, because they among the few things that are not voluntary. That does not make a lot of sense, now does it?

My observations show that people choose test methods that reinforce what they already beleive or at least hope is true.

That would be you talking about you, I guess. You seem to be denying that one would or could make a choice in the interest of finding out reliable information. Again, you would be speaking for yourself in that regard.

Genrally speaking if you think cables make a difference no need for blind testing.

I find that to be really strange. Are you suggesting that one would never do a test that could possibly change how one thought?

If you think cables are a "load of crap "you want an ABX test to prove it.

So you've excluded the possibility of doing a test with an agnostic frame of mind?

Very few say, I don't kniow why don't we do a DBT and find out.

And you base this on what kind of survey of how many audio consumers and professionals? What accounting firm certifies your results?

Iroinically proponents of ABX actually do it as infrequently as the skeptics.

Again, you seem to feel free to make up some very far reaching statements and present them like they are written in stone.

 

[amirm]

Please explain, based on true quotes prestented within the context they were origionally posted.

I can't believe you are asking me to quote it after doing it so many times elsewhere. But you said this: "Sound quality also means somethng in the pro sound marketplace. Most if not all pro sound power amps would pass a straight wire bypass test when included in a very diagnostic audio chain. "

That is the sum total of the whole paragraph. There is no other context saying based on science amps sound different.

One where good effective choices were made with resepect to the encoder and its parameters.

What are those?

 

[arnyk]

I can't believe you are asking me to quote it after doing it so many times elsewhere. But you said this: "Sound quality also means somethng in the pro sound marketplace. Most if not all pro sound power amps would pass a straight wire bypass test when included in a very diagnostic audio chain. "

That is the sum total of the whole paragraph. There is no other context saying based on science amps sound different.

I see no problems, inconsistencies or contradictions.

One where good effective choices were made with resepect to the encoder and its parameters

What are those?

Stuff like the items found here:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame

 

[amirm]

I see no problems, inconsistencies or contradictions.

Let's have a show of hands to see who agrees with you and will defend the same point of view.

Stuff like the items found here:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lame

Where in there does it say you can get CD quality out of MP3 if it is "well made?" This is their quality graph:

Even at the highest file size it asymptotes to 90% fidelity, not 100%. Is this your definition of "indistinguishable" from CD quality?

 

[Gregadd]

I would like you to cite a peer-reviewed paper that was written in the past 10 years and advises the use of sighted evaluations during the development of SOTA audio products

.

The status quo is just that. It's the detractors that keep attacking.

 

[microstrip]

Disclaimer:
If you are reading this post with the intention of scrutinizing it, finding what is my agenda or aggressively replying to it, you are loosing your time, as the post itself would or the author would not be worth your efforts. I consider myself an audiophile and find pleasure on audiophile tertulias, and really believe in what I consider I hear. The only emotional connection I have with audio, besides music, are the many friends, both from the industry and distribution, or consumers as me, I have made in this hobby.
End of disclaimer.

One of the big drawbacks I see in the ABX tests is the intrinsic self training aspect of the test.
I was recently listening to two top cables, known to sound synergistic with my gear. A curious aspect was that systematically, with one of them, I perceived more details in the music the first time I listened to it - e.g. if you listen to the wonderful Paniagua “La Folia” you will find that immediately from the beginning of the first track the background is full of bird cheeps. Listening casually with this cable I was able to find them in more places than usually. A second listening with the other cable I found that the cheeps are also there, only I had not noticed them in the previous listening. But after knowing they are there I can easily find them. I repeated the test with other tracks, sometimes reversing the order of listening, and the effect was systematic – low noise details seemed easier to perceive and more natural with one of the cables. Curiously the tendency was against the common audiophile perception about these cables.

If I was carrying an ABX test I would not be able to identify this difference – once your mind knows that the cheeps are there both cables would sound very similar, as listening to the “better” cable would have trained me.

One of the more rewarding aspects of upgrading is when, after we suppose we already get used to the new gear, we suddenly casually discover new aspects in old recordings we listened to tens of times.

I was tempted to be politically correct and replace my cables by an electrostatic speaker and a dynamic speaker in this post – perhaps it would allow a more quiet background debate of it. But to be true, I do not think I should do it.

BTW, before replying to this post please look for your copy of La Folia and try to find the instant when the hornet buzzes …

 

[amirm]

I keep forgetting that you have these intentionally opaque blinders on, and so it seems like you will only consider evidence that is peer-reviewed and published in first-tier journals. It truely is a case of blinders because a great deal of product development never gets any formal papers written about it. Many of the methodologies used to develop products are proprietary and considered by its owners to be trade secrets. If the curtains are pushed aside momentarily and we see something interesting, you have forbiden that it be discussed.

I would like you to cite a peer-reviewed paper that was written in the past 10 years and advises the use of sighted evaluations during the development of SOTA audio products.

By far, the most common method for development and evaluation of audio equipment in the industry is sighted evaluations. There is no way anyone can afford the time or cost of running double blind tests for every product design choice. If you disagree, why don't you tell us which company you know that strictly and solely designs products using double blind testing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let's have a show of hands to see who agrees with you and will defend the same point of view.

I think this...

Sound quality also means somethng in the pro sound marketplace. Most if not all pro sound power amps would pass a straight wire bypass test when included in a very diagnostic audio chain.

...is a very different statement from "all audio electronics sound the same."

Is that still what we're talking about? I'm not at all sure whether or not I'm raising my hand...

Tim

 

[arnyk]

Let's have a show of hands to see who agrees with you and will defend the same point of view.


Where in there does it say you can get CD quality out of MP3 if it is "well made?" This is their quality graph:

Even at the highest file size it asymptotes to 90% fidelity, not 100%. Is this your definition of "indistinguishable" from CD quality?

The question is not what my definition is, the question is what does the author think?

Here is the caption that you deleted:

"Here a trial to see how the perceived listening quality improves with settings/averaged filesize"

Hmm "perceived listening quality". How formal and exact is that? ;-)

Please show where they provide a formal definition of what this quality scale means.

Is the quality scale formal or informal?

Is it based on subjective test results or objective test results?

If you can't give concrete and exactly answers, then it must be some arbitrary scale.

 

[amirm]

I think this...

These are the two statements Arny has made which he says are in total agreement:

1.

Audiophiles often behave as if every amplifier sounds different. The buy amplifiers like many people buy socks. The science says that some do sound the same, and some don't.

2.

"Sound quality also means somethng in the pro sound marketplace. Most if not all pro sound power amps would pass a straight wire bypass test when included in a very diagnostic audio chain. "

Do you think #1 and #2 are consistent with each other?

...is a very different statement from "all audio electronics sound the same."

Actually the standard being applied is even higher. He is saying the pro amps pass a "wire" test.

 

[arnyk]

I would like you to cite a peer-reviewed paper that was written in the past 10 years and advises the use of sighted evaluations during the development of SOTA audio products.

By far, the most common method for development and evaluation of audio equipment in the industry is sighted evaluations. There is no way anyone can afford the time or cost of running double blind tests for every product design choice. If you disagree, why don't you tell us which company you know that strictly and solely designs products using double blind testing.

Since you are not answering my question Amir, I will take the liberty of not answering yours.

 

[arnyk]

These are the two statements Arny has made which he says are in total agreement:

1. Audiophiles often behave as if every amplifier sounds different. The buy amplifiers like many people buy socks. The science says that some do sound the same, and some don't.

2. Sound quality also means somethng in the pro sound marketplace. Most if not all pro sound power amps would pass a straight wire bypass test when included in a very diagnostic audio chain. "

Do you think #1 and #2 are consistent with each other?

They were designed to be inconsistent with each other! You didn't notice?

Actually the standard being applied is even higher. He is saying the pro amps pass a "wire" test.

One statement talks about human behavior, the other talks about power amplifier behavior. Since power amps and audiophiles are different things, it should be no surprise that they vary from each other!

 

[Gregadd]

That's obvious. The real question is whether facts and reason will change your mind, or if this is something that you hold so tightly that it can't possibly be changed.



Depends who the us was. When we developed ABX we were already thinking about and doing blind tests.



I am struck by the oddness of beliefs about audio that would be sacred.




If something being voluntary is a problem, then about the only things that are non-problematical are things like death and taxes, because they among the few things that are not voluntary. That does not make a lot of sense, now does it?




That would be you talking about you, I guess. You seem to be denying that one would or could make a choice in the interest of finding out reliable information. Again, you would be speaking for yourself in that regard.



I find that to be really strange. Are you suggesting that one would never do a test that could possibly change how one thought?



So you've excluded the possibility of doing a test with an agnostic frame of mind?




And you base this on what kind of survey of how many audio consumers and professionals? What accounting firm certifies your results?




Again, you seem to feel free to make up some very far reaching statements and present them like they are written in stone.

I really hate it that these sites have the ability to divide up quotes. It's almost a demand to quote people out if context.

ABX is jsut a form of blind testing. Can you even consider there might be a form of DBT that allow its' current advocates to do what they claim they want to do. That is to confirm or deny the hypothesis formed by us listners that we hear what we claim ?

I think it can and should be done. Maybe then you can stop preaching to the choir and get some converts.

I apologize if you find my metaphors annoying. As far as making up stuff I suppose, I could do a formal paper of all the stuff I read on the subject. I just have no hope it would change anyones' mind. Remember I statred this thread because "I was trawling for articles agiinst ABX."
Finally you have every right to use a differnt name on this thread.
However when you say" we developed ABX", I find that intriguing. If you could PM some of yur more pertinent publications or a CV. I would not have to "make stuff up."

 

[amirm]

The question is not what my definition is, the question is what does the author think?

No you have it backward. You made the claim that well-made MP3s are indistinguishable from CD. I asked you what that meant and you sent me to the wiki. I found no evidence of any claims in that wiki.

Here is the caption that you deleted:

"Here a trial to see how the perceived listening quality improves with settings/averaged filesize"

Hmm "perceived listening quality". How formal and exact is that? ;-)

Why are you asking me? You provided that reference. Now you say you are not sure what that page and data means? Why did you provide it then to back up your claim?

Please show where they provide a formal definition of what this quality scale means.

Is the quality scale formal or informal?

Is it based on subjective test results or objective test results?

If you can't give concrete and exactly answers, then it must be some arbitrary scale.

Again, this is *your* reference. You need to defend it, not me. You made a very strong claim that MP3 can create transparency with the source. I am asking you for what constitutes "well made" to create such an illusion.

 

[amirm]

Since you are not answering my question Amir, I will take the liberty of not answering yours.

I didn't think your question needed answering. But here it is anyway. No one has written a paper to prove that sighted tests are the way to evaluate products.

That being the case, we don't design products using ideals. We don't have ideal transistors, caps, inductors, speakers, etc. Good engineering is about making good compromises and a company wanting to stay ahead, will use sighted test results if the chances of such data being wrong is very low. Use of expert listeners is one method to achieve high statistical relevance here.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

These are the two statements Arny has made which he says are in total agreement:

1.

2.

Do you think #1 and #2 are consistent with each other?


Actually the standard being applied is even higher. He is saying the pro amps pass a "wire" test.

No, I don't think they're consistent, and if by "wire test" we're talking about the amp neither adding nor subtracting anything measurable from the input signal, that's a pretty big claim, yes. But taking that part away, I don't think the two statements necessarily should be consistent. One refers to "every amplifier," and the other refers to "pro amplifiers." I don't know if Arny is right, but he's not necessarily contradicting himself.

Tim

 

[amirm]

They were designed to be inconsistent with each other! You didn't notice?

Seems like you yourself didn't notice when you said this:

I see no problems, inconsistencies or contradictions.

So in one breath you see no inconsistency. In the other, they designed to be inconsistent?

One statement talks about human behavior, the other talks about power amplifier behavior. Since power amps and audiophiles are different things, it should be no surprise that they vary from each other!

Right.... A statement that includes "science" telling us amps can sound different is now a human behavior thing? What was the other about anyway if it was not in relation to us hearing what comes out of the amp? That they measure identically?

 

[amirm]

No, I don't think they're consistent, and if by "wire test" we're talking about the amp neither adding nor subtracting anything measurable from the input signal, that's a pretty big claim, yes. But taking that part away, I don't think the two statements necessarily should be consistent. One refers to "every amplifier," and the other refers to "pro amplifiers." I don't know if Arny is right, but he's not necessarily contradicting himself.

Tim

So you are saying that he may be saying that consumer amps can sound different from each other but pro ones won't? On what basis? What science tells us that? Are pro amps subjected to double blind tests routinely to prove that point? Do they naturally have a design topology that enables that? What?

 

[Orb]

I keep forgetting that you have these intentionally opaque blinders on, and so it seems like you will only consider evidence that is peer-reviewed and published in first-tier journals. It truely is a case of blinders because a great deal of product development never gets any formal papers written about it. Many of the methodologies used to develop products are proprietary and considered by its owners to be trade secrets. If the curtains are pushed aside momentarily and we see something interesting, you have forbiden that it be discussed.

I would like you to cite a peer-reviewed paper that was written in the past 10 years and advises the use of sighted evaluations during the development of SOTA audio products.

Arny I am smiling at this as it is pretty ironic.
From whenever I read about "objectivists vs subjectivists", its the objectivists that are hit with this kind of statement, well anyway made me smile from an ironic point where you and I know others have been accused of that in the past on other forums - didnt seem to mind then

Anyway I am not being blinded but unfortunately it MUST be scientific research related in this instance, as we are talking about product development relying upon validated data/mechanisms/etc.

Again with the sighted evaluation;
I answered that earlier and stated how flawed that is, but maybe you were not happy that I expanded it to also include that one needs to also consider the listener or reviewer and their approach that may be similar or linked to debiasing principles.
However as I mentioned this is going to be rare with most reviewers, but there are some who do have the analytical-methodical and important scientific-engineering discipline to do so.
What is not known as I said, is whether this can overcome biological and neurological factors such as mOFC enjoyment triggers, but again this may be countered with extensive long term listening - which again not all reviewers do but some will.
And, as I mentioned in the past this is type of audio aspect that needs further studying as is an unknown.

Cheers
Orb

 

[arnyk]

ABX is jsut a form of blind testing. Can you even consider there might be a form of DBT that allow its' current advocates to do what they claim they want to do. That is to confirm or deny the hypothesis formed by us listners that we hear what we claim ?

I don't believe that you have stated the ABX advocate's intents correctly. Our intent is to confirm or deny our own hypothesis that two different things sound different. That other listeners have the same or different hypothesis is coincidental.

Remember I started this thread because "I was trawling for articles agiinst ABX."

Really?

However when you say" we developed ABX", I find that intriguing. If you could PM some of yur more pertinent publications or a CV. I would not have to "make stuff up."

I am the inventor of the ABX Comparator. I built the first one that worked, and I did the first ABX test. This is well enough known in the audiophile/pro audio community that I feel no compulsion to go any further. If you don't believe this, then you shouldn't believe a word I say. If you don't believe a word I say, then I have no need to converse with you. Take it or leave it! ;-)