Is ABX finally Obsolete

[arnyk]

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

I find the above paragraph to be very confused and confusing.

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.

As Amir was kind enough to point out, most product development is done based on sighted evaluations which pass virtually no formal logical tests for validity. Your repeated demands of exceptional poof for ABX would ordinarly be taken as a sign of considerable bias against it.

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.

If that were true then you would already have a reasonbly good background in experimental design and you would not need anybody to repeat to you what you had already learned.

Here is a farily standard textbook on the topic:

Sensory evaluation techniques, 4th ed. by Meilgaard, Morten et al.

 

[arnyk]

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

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

I didn't say both things in the same post. Therefore the statements were from two different posts, two different contexts. It appears that for some unknown reasonyou decided to take them out-of-context, juxtaposition them in some way other than that which I intended, and then having thrown the usual principles of intellectual honesty into the trash can, cross examine me about them.

Somehow I don't want to play! Call me crazy... ;-)

 

[arnyk]

No
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.

Asked and answered. It is generally agreed upon that some CD tracks can be made into MP3s in such a way that they are audibly indistinguishable from the original CD tracks, and others can't. Some MP3 encoders are parameter driven and require an appropriate set of parameters in order to do that. Seems simple enough.

 

[arnyk]

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.

Amir knows that criteria being used was listening tests, not measurements. In general, straight wire bypass tests are not used for measrurement-based evaluations. They are generally used only for listennig tests.

 

[Ron Party]

Amps passing the straight wire bypass test, CDs being indistinguishable from MP3s, etc., are tangential to the OP and in part are a carryover from the AVS thread. If there is a desire to continue to debate those issues, while very interesting, one or more new threads here should and can be started. Can we stay on topic? This is a debate thread about whether ABX is obsolete.

 

[Orb]

I find the above paragraph to be very confused and confusing.



As Amir was kind enough to point out, most product development is done based on sighted evaluations which pass virtually no formal logical tests for validity. Your repeated demands of exceptional poof for ABX would ordinarly be taken as a sign of considerable bias against it.



If that were true then you would already have a reasonbly good background in experimental design and you would not need anybody to repeat to you what you had already learned.

Here is a farily standard textbook on the topic:

Sensory evaluation techniques, 4th ed. by Meilgaard, Morten et al.

Yes Arny,
but now you are forgetting the original point from Microstrip and my response, now talking about bias you are using selective bias and choose the arguments that suite yourself.
Again for concrete proof one should utilise scientific studies.

On the last point I will lastly mention about an ABX scientific study that focuses on difference strategy or independent-obervations strategy.
As you seem to be more aware of ABX and study you can explain to us how this works, which fits in with my points in other threads about monitoring cognitive behaviour of the participant.

Got to go for now, but honestly I can say I am as open to science on this as you, meaning we are both biased I would say in some way
But strange as you know testing that you did not realise same-different is a current standard.

Thanks
Orb

Edited to correct the syntax of strategy decisions; difference strategy and independent observations strategy.

 

[amirm]

I didn't say both things in the same post. Therefore the statements were from two different posts, two different contexts.

Do you mean that we should not be consistent when we are making statements regarding fidelity of some audio equipment from post to post? How would the science of such a thing allow us to state differing point of views that way?

It appears that for some unknown reasonyou decided to take them out-of-context, juxtaposition them in some way other than that which I intended, and then having thrown the usual principles of intellectual honesty into the trash can, cross examine me about them.

I am giving you or anyone else who is reading ample opportunity to tell us how they are consistent with each other. It is the nature of a forum especially in an argumentative thread like this one that we well, argue about such things . Ultimately, I like to understand your simple point of view regarding amplifiers and I can't based on those two statements.

Somehow I don't want to play! Call me crazy... ;-)

You should at all times feel free to withdraw from a discussion. No one has a right to force someone to answer if they do not want to participate. Of course, for our part we also have the option to draw any inferences we want from the data already put forth. And that data points to your position very extremely inconsistent and your explanation even more challenging to digest.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

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?

Well let's get one thing clear first -- I don't know what Arny's saying. Arny can speak for himself. But what I'm saying is that consumer amps can sound different from each other while pro amps may not. Pro amps, as a general category, could be designed and built for the deliberate purpose of delivering low-noise, low-distortion and high output into a very deliberately specified load, while some consumer amps may, for example, deviate from flat frequency response, use antiquated technology that, while beloved by many, is well-known for relatively high measurable levels of noise and distortion, and deliver an output that would be insufficient to drive many (most?) consumer speakers without driving itself into clipping. And before we go there, are there some "pro" amps of this kind of design? Yes, I suppose that's possible. There are exceptions to almost every rule.

And again, I have no idea if that's what Arny is saying. But it is a shinning, glittering example of what I'm sayin'. As is demonstrated in the discussions here every day, Audiophilia is not necessarily a cult of measurable truth and accuracy.

Tim

 

[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 just reminding you how you use peer reviewed to your own advantage, but when it is used to point out that scientific research involved with product development was other than ABX as I discussed with Microstrip you now argue against your position of using peer reviewed papers, that is selective bias.

And yes I understand that ABX can be used as Amir has said in the past and as I have used it in engineering myself, but you should accept it is anecdotal evidence in the development or more critically fine tuning/fault resolution of a product in development.
With that said, a product is more developed outside of ABX than with it.
And preference/same-different/threshold testing will be used as much if not more when considering various disciplines and sectors.

Thanks
Orb

 

[arnyk]

Well let's get one thing clear first -- I don't know what Arny's saying. Arny can speak for himself.

What I'm saying can be stated any number of different ways. Therefore I'm going to systematically ignore any posts that try to pick nits about my choices of wording in different posts.

Obviously, the most reliable way to answer questions about variations in amplifier sound quality is to do some kind of bias-controlled listening test.

Some audio amplifiers color the music they amplify and some don't. Right now, considering audio equipment in the category we call "mid fi" and working up, excluding tubed equipment, the vast majority of all power amps, whether consumer or professional, and including mobile audio, don't audibly color the sound if used in reasonble ways. I only have the resources to do spot testing, but my spot tests have pretty consistent results.

If you want to prove me wrong, or question what I've said, be sure to have the results of a comprehensive set of technical tests, and one or more proper DBTs in hand.

 

[microstrip]

(...) But it is a shinning, glittering example of what I'm sayin'. As is demonstrated in the discussions here every day, Audiophilia is not necessarily a cult of measurable truth and accuracy.

Tim

Tim,
Happily Audiophilia can be much more than that. I was considering adding a few more words on this subject, but I do not want to call the attention of the men in green. SHHH!

 

[fas42]

Please explain further what you mean by distinguishing variations in gear with fixed audio and distinguishing variations in audio with fixed gear.

If you vary the audio track being played through equipment this has almost no chance of disturbing the equilibrium, the status of the system as a total entity. There are extreme examples: if you played heavy metal at high volumes, and then immediately switched to some soft string quartet, then the temperature rise and "stress" of the previous track on amplifier and speakers may effect the SQ. And there are other subtleties at work here too ...

But if you vary the equipment configuration then the equilibrium of the system is altered, sometimes dramatically, and often it can take considerable time for a new stability to return to the system. You may not believe this to be the case, but most people who are aiming for higher levels of performance are grappling with these issues on an ongoing basis.

So I would say that unless the ABX or some other method of testing takes these considerations on board then it has little chance of convincing the more "discriminating" listeners ...

Frank

 

[Steve williams]

But if you vary the equipment configuration then the equilibrium of the system is altered, sometimes dramatically, and often it can take considerable time for a new stability to return to the system.

could you explain this statement. I'm having a difficult time trying to understand it

 

[Gregadd]

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.





Really?



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! ;-)

I know you only as ARNYK. Your profile gives us no furhter information. Since you challenge my posts, it seems you have already "conversed with me." I thought you might want to enlighten me on your experience on the subject. It seems it would be great to have the creator of the ABX participate in a discussion of the ABX. If you decline, that's your call.

 

[mep]

could you explain this statement. I'm having a difficult time trying to understand it

I predict that you never will understand it because it doesn't make sense. If he said that if you change out components in a system, it might take your ears awhile to adjust to the new sound, that would be understandable. To frame it in terms of the system having to stabilize with the new components, that doesn't make sense.

 

[Gregadd]

I hope I am correct. http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm

 

[fas42]

could you explain this statement. I'm having a difficult time trying to understand it

This is merely what people on audio forums talk of all the time, that if something is altered then it has to "burn in" in the context of the system over a period of time, cables are a classic example of this -- Roger is particularly aware of this. A lot of what is going on is that the electrical environment that the whole system is operating in varies as you switch from A to B and then back to A again: in terms of the mains quality that equipment sees, the interference that a piece of gear produces or is affected by, the level of static buildup in some area, all sorts of very subtle effects come into play, and they all influence the SQ. The theoretical concept is that you just switch from A to B, and that is the only change that's meaningful, but the better the system the more likely that simple change will subtlely alter how some other part of the system works, and the point of the exercise is swamped by these factors.

As I mentioned earlier, ABX on equipment change will work beautifully with coarser variations in SQ between 2 scenarios, and varying audio tracks in general; the finer the variation in characteristics between 2 gear setups the less chance of anything being discerned ...

Frank

 

[amirm]

What I'm saying can be stated any number of different ways. Therefore I'm going to systematically ignore any posts that try to pick nits about my choices of wording in different posts.

Obviously, the most reliable way to answer questions about variations in amplifier sound quality is to do some kind of bias-controlled listening test.

Some audio amplifiers color the music they amplify and some don't. Right now, considering audio equipment in the category we call "mid fi" and working up, excluding tubed equipment, the vast majority of all power amps, whether consumer or professional, and including mobile audio, don't audibly color the sound if used in reasonble ways. I only have the resources to do spot testing, but my spot tests have pretty consistent results.

If you want to prove me wrong, or question what I've said, be sure to have the results of a comprehensive set of technical tests, and one or more proper DBTs in hand.

I am curious why you think it is the responsibility of one side and not other to back up their respective claims. Can you point us to amplifier companies performing DBTs that back your point of view with their current products? I have looked everywhere and other than Harman/Mark Levinson, none talk about blind listening tests.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frank -- But if you vary the equipment configuration then the equilibrium of the system is altered, sometimes dramatically, and often it can take considerable time for a new stability to return to the system.

Steve -- could you explain this statement. I'm having a difficult time trying to understand it

ie: There's a disturbance in The Force.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Some audio amplifiers color the music they amplify and some don't. Right now, considering audio equipment in the category we call "mid fi" and working up, excluding tubed equipment, the vast majority of all power amps, whether consumer or professional, and including mobile audio, don't audibly color the sound if used in reasonble ways. I only have the resources to do spot testing, but my spot tests have pretty consistent results.

Now that's some first class CYA double talk.
Could it be ABX is obsolete because its' to hard even for the inventor?