Is ABX finally Obsolete
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
- Status
16 trials. Anything less is a no go. 
What we should do is poll our wives, girlfriends and exes. Not necessarily in that order.
What we should do is poll our wives, girlfriends and exes. Not necessarily in that order.
An example of baiting taken from HA:
"I am not being condescending here. You just refuse to prove to us that you can actually hear a different[difference] with ABX testing. The only reason that I can think of for this refusal is that you are afraid that you can't hear a difference."
To John Atkinson form a member of HA
"I am not being condescending here. You just refuse to prove to us that you can actually hear a different[difference] with ABX testing. The only reason that I can think of for this refusal is that you are afraid that you can't hear a difference."
To John Atkinson form a member of HA
Last edited:
They're both strange. What's important to the test is that they are two different bunches of guys.
Tim
I am sure you guys have already seen this.
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html
"..BACK TO ACCOUNTABILITY: If Michael Fremer can go around recommending $60,000 gear based on his listening abilities, some might reasonably want proof he’s qualified. And being a good sport, Mr Fremer broke rank and participated in at least a few blind listening tests. The result was a rather mixed bag and at least one included lots of hand waving. And, not surprisingly, few want to follow in his footsteps. Today it’s even more difficult to find listeners with a public reputation willing to participate in a blind test. The same people who publish hearing “immediate and obvious” differences in everything from cables to power conditioners typically make all sorts of questionable excuses when asked to do so with brown bags or bed sheets concealing the choices. Personally, I suspect Fremer probably can hear things 99% of the population would have trouble hearing. If anything, he’s a “ringer” for the subjectivists and I have genuine respect for his listening abilities. So it’s especially a shame he, and other skilled critics like him, won’t participate in more blind tests..."
SUPRA, Emphasis supplied.
SUPRA, Emphasis supplied.
I admit that it is a far more polite discourse than we usually find in this discussion. Nevertheless Mr. Fremer is still singled out as a freak and his positive results a lucky coin.
The whole quote seems rather flattering to Fremer. Having read some of his reviews, I'm sure he hears things 100% of us don't hear. The positive results could be luck; there certainly aren't enough samples to indicate, much less conclude anything. But it could be that Fremer heard a difference, too. I wish someone had run a lot more trials so it would at least indicate something. 5/5 is pretty meaningless.
Tim
Tim
As a hobbyist I just have not seen any consistency in the choice of premier products anointed by the audio reviewers. For example Peter Aczel picked the Audio Research SP-6 as the best tube amp. He then added that it's superiority had nothing to do with it being tube driven Over the years I have witnessed a rich variety of designs and brand names. The hobbyist have also demonstrated rich diversity and ability to ignore the recommendations of the audio press.
IME bias tends to produce a foolish consistency that just is not present in audio,
IME bias tends to produce a foolish consistency that just is not present in audio,
Have you read much of Aczel's work? He's a numbers guy. Makes me look like a starry-eyed subjectivist. I haven't read this review, but knowing Aczel it probably means the AR was super clean, with none of the "euphonic" qualities tubes are often sought out for. It probably behaved and to his ears, sounded, like a good SS pre. And that's why he thought it was the best tube pre.
Tim
Interesting. Aczel did a review based on a straight sighted evaluation? No measurements? That's just weird. His listening is usually sighted, but along with extensive measurment. No, I haven't heard the ARC.
Oh, and I missed this part the last time:
I find the opposite to be true, that bias tends to produce reports of inconsistencies that are not present in well-designed components. People hear all kinds of "differences" that are not born out by measurements or the rare session of objective listening. And they shouldn't be. An excellent tube preamp and an excellent SS preamp should not only sound very much alike, ideally, they should not "sound" at all. They should be transparent. This is their job, their purpose. If they sound "different," one, or both, are doing something wrong and their designers should be relentlessly persuing the problem.
So what are we "hearing" again? Failure? Compromise?
Tim
Last edited:
Mr. Aczel is in his 80s. That he maintains a web site at all is an accomplishment.
We are bound to fall much shorter of our pursuit if we allow ourselves to believe that the compromise is greater than the goal.
Tim
Oh, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind, I was just responding to this:
But more than a few high-end audio designers have sought something other than perfection, if you define that as transparency.
Tim
Tim
No argument there.
That brings us full circle to the question of how we define that goal , who is pursuing it, acheiving it, at what price and by what metric we use to decide it. Alas the two camps remain as far part as ever.
- Status
Similar threads
