Is ABX finally Obsolete

[fas42]

Did you know that Teresa's mother can tell the difference between different speaker cables from another room, while doing the dishes? I am not kidding! Yes, that's the same Teresa.

Even though your comment is sarcastic, that's exactly what distinguishes a high performance audio system from just ordinary hi-fi. If a system is working at a decent level it's instantly noticeable from the other end of the house that the performance level has altered because of some change -- just like if someone were playing a piano and a note suddenly went slightly out of tune: you wouldn't have to be a hi-fi nut or music freak to pick the difference ...

Frank

 

[fas42]

Sorry, another thought ...

One area where this ABX thing is not a good match for the human perception mechanism is that it is pretty poor in taking into account that the ear/brain is highly adaptive, and also easily fatigued. Adaptive, in that the more time and level of interest the mind has in dealing with something the better is its capability to discern subtleties. And capable of being fatigued, in that the more it has to something which is intrinsically very boring and seemingly pointlessly repetitive, the less it will be bothered to do a decent job of distinguishing between similar experiences. Best to bring in some trained monkeys to do the job ...

FRank

 

[Gregadd]

:

That depends on the case presented. Make your case, counselor.

Tim

I have may times and been shown the door. Sometimes rudely! If I find something new I'll share it.

 

[Gregadd]

This is new: http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/27/should-we-care-about-abx-test-results/

 

[amirm]

This is new: http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/27/should-we-care-about-abx-test-results/

I am not sure he proved much but it was a far more refreshing read than the one that started the thread. So thanks for posting it.

 

[Gregadd]

I am not sure he proved much but it was a far more refreshing read than the one that started the thread. So thanks for posting it.

At least as good as the Mcgurk effect.

 

[terryj]

hey greg, here's a novel idea.

How about instead of trawling the net finding viewpoints that back up your already held position, why not challenge them?

Dunno, maybe even take the time to participate in a dbt?

Two fluff pieces does not an argument make.

rust, really?

Just as an aside, how about a right of reply to the matilda piece?? reckon *we* would get it? Course not, wouldn't want to stop the rhetoric about shakti stones would we.

 

[terryj]

did you not look at her other opinions greg?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/sacd.htm

I find CDs, 16/44.1kHz lossless music files (WAV. AIFF, Flac, Apple Lossless), 16/44.1kHz lossy music files (AAC, MP3) unacceptable for music listening purposes. I just cannot enjoy music so crippled.

So here's a chick that has such a poor system that THIS is her position?

Further

All 16 Bit 44.1kHz music files have been deleted from my hard-drive, I now listen exclusively to 24 Bit music files, most with sampling frequencies from 88.2kHz - 192kHz.

Not ONE 16/44 disk is listenable?

So, if I am not very much mistaken, to her the format is what is important NOT the music??

Well, so much for her total mischaracterisation about 'objectivists' not listening to music eh?

Yet, she feels fine in forcing her own deficiencies system wise on to others?

So what have we here essentially? Someone who has such a poor system (and listens to formats) yet some feel that her opinion is one worth listening too? Why??

I mean fine, if you decry DBT's etc etc, ok. BUT to use the first linked POC as some sort of article to be taken seriously?

Want me to dissect the first fluff piece? Would be fun!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I mean fine, if you decry DBT's etc etc, ok. BUT to use the first linked POC as some sort of article to be taken seriously?

I can't really take the second posted article seriously either. It is little more than a couple of horribly stretched analogies. Evidence of the lack of efficacy of ABX testing? Hardly. More fluff. Better written. A bit less whacked. No more substantive. If this is the kind of thing you've posted before, Gregg, while Im sorry you've been treated rudely, I'm not a bit surprised you were "shown the door." Claiming that a widely used and accepted research methodology is invalid is serious. These articles are not.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

hey greg, here's a novel idea.

How about instead of trawling the net finding viewpoints that back up your already held position, why not challenge them?

Dunno, maybe even take the time to participate in a dbt?

Two fluff pieces does not an argument make.

rust, really?

Just as an aside, how about a right of reply to the matilda piece?? reckon *we* would get it? Course not, wouldn't want to stop the rhetoric about shakti stones would we.

Trawling? Have not we traded insults before?

 

[Gregadd]

I can't really take the second posted article seriously either. It is little more than a couple of horribly stretched analogies. Evidence of the lack of efficacy of ABX testing? Hardly. More fluff. Better written. A bit less whacked. No more substantive. If this is the kind of thing you've posted before, Gregg, while Im sorry you've been treated rudely, I'm not a bit surprised you were "shown the door." Claiming that a widely used and accepted research methodology is invalid is serious. These articles are not.

Tim

Come on Tim. You are fully aware of my arguments. You have commented on most of them. Go back and read them

If things like auditory memory don't give you or members pause, then whose credibiltiy is compromised. I don't think the articles are suitable for publication in a scientific journal but they make good points for discusiion.
ABX always descends into name calling and insults.

 

[terryj]

Trawling? Have not we traded insults before?

Insults? I hope not.

Is trawling an insult? If so i apologise.

I will tell you what I meant it to mean, you can tell me what you take it to mean.

I mean 'looking for references that have a certain conclusion or slant'. that also implies ignoring conflicting conclusions or slants.

Hope that cleared it up, let me know if I need to clarify further.

 

[terryj]

If things like auditory memory don't give you or members pause, then whose credibiltiy is compromised.

What point are you trying to make with this?

Auditory memory, it is recognised as a weakness, ie it does not last very long.

How does it bolster *your* argument that long term listening is required? It says to me that any change must be quick, what does it say to you?

Or, is it the 'hypothesis' that we cannot compare *three* different sounds, as outlined in the fluff piece? (forget that in effect we are comparing two-which seems Ok or at least 'not banned'-as we are hearing ONE stimulus straight after another one...ie two sounds not three) THAT is the 'auditory memory' you refer to?

Not quite sure to be sure (the irish in me)

naahh, no irish, just a gag

 

[Gregadd]

I am not going down this roadd. It was an insult and you know it. How could you possibly know what "research" I do on the subject? Even if I had guys like you always throwing it in my face. Citing papers that support my position? How dare I? Proponents of ABX never do that.

I'll decline to participate in ABX. But you know if Harmon International wanted to hire me to participate in thier product evalautions, I'll be happy to oiblige.

 

[DS-21]

ABX always descends into name calling and insults.

True. The argument always seems to end have the following result:

audiophool: YOUR hearing may not be good enough to hear the differences, but I hear them so na, na, na na na.
rational music lover: you're deluded.

The funny thing is, most of both of those statements (everything except for the first clause in "audiophool") is true! The reason is that the two approach audio from fundamentally opposed weltanschauungen: one that views audio as a straightforward application of engineering principles to achieve a desired result, and one that thinks there's magic in the machine.

 

[RBFC]

ATTACK THE POST, NOT THE POSTER! PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. Argue the points made in the text and try to hold the conversation as if you were speaking face-to-face. Remember, nothing written on this forum will FORCE you to change your mind or buy into something you do not want. This thread is wandering close to that edge of a foodfight.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Come on Tim. You are fully aware of my arguments. You have commented on most of them. Go back and read them

If things like auditory memory don't give you or members pause, then whose credibiltiy is compromised. I don't think the articles are suitable for publication in a scientific journal but they make good points for discusiion.
ABX always descends into name calling and insults.

I don't see any name calling or insults here and I don't see anything new in this argument, Gregg. I also don't see any articles or arguments that deserve serious consideration. I can show, and have, reports from very carefully designed and executed studies conducted with many participants, with many systems, under varying conditions, etc. I can also show you substantive and scientifically supported data showing that human auditory memory is short and is the most (only?) effective way to differentiate subtle differences, if they exist, is quick switching, etc. You give me a woman who believes all redbook is unlistenable and whose mom can hear the difference between cables from the kitchen with the dishwasher running, and a guy who can fairly literately draw analogies between unrelated brain behavior, rust and blind listening...a decent read, but it's still just his opinion, unsullied by any statistical or scientific discipline or data.

I asked for an example of a research scientist, statistician, research assistant, secretary at a research firm presenting a scientific case against the efficacy of ABX testing. You still haven't come up with one, here, or any of your preceding arguments. That's not an insult, it's a fact.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Okay then we have a situation where an audiophile claims to hear something that is not confirmed by conventional measurements. Said audiophile accepts an ABX challenge. Hs results are statistically insignificant. He say score 10 out of 20.
We can come to several conclusions. He could not reliably hear the difference. Or there is something wrong with the way he approached the test. The test is fundamentally flawed. Or I have suggested the he did not want thear a difference.

Many have suggested the problem is auditory memory. That is to say I can hear a difference but when it came time to match A to X or B to X I could not sufficiently remember what A or B sounds like. The current solution is rapid switching between the the equipment under evaluation. Although it is often stated you could listen as long as you like ,rapid switching is a much more cost effective method.

Surely even proponents of ABX do not think it is perfect. Perhaps we can come up with a better double blind methodology with getting offended and calling each other names.

 

[Steve williams]

This thread seems to be devolving into the same name calling as in "can you believe your senses".

I am sure Greg and DS-21 don't behave this way in court. Methinks it is below the demeanor of the two of you.

 

[Robh3606]

Many have suggested the problem is auditory memory. That is to say I can hear a difference but when it came time to match A to X or B to X I could not sufficiently remember what A or B sounds like.

Hello Gregadd

I think you should download the Harman software give it a go. It's posted in Seans Forum. I have no problem what so ever hearing/remembering the diferences when I am listening too the original vs the filtered/altered files. Once you try that software you can see it's a bogus point. Funny thing how your audio memory is so short but you can clearly determine which one of you friends or loved one's is speaking at the end of an 8 hour shift at work. Does that seem a bit odd that peoples voices are essentially imprinted in your brain but you can't remember the difference between two sounds in a test 3-4 seconds apart??

Rob