Tips for ABX Tests

[j_j]

Astrotoy -

I expect you to reply responsibly to your completely incorrect complaints about audio double-blind tests.

You appealed to an authority that you validated by "30 million" in scientific grants, and you insinuated professional status via that, in support of your false accusations.

If you wish to continue with your unwarranted attack on an entire branch of science, I await your full and complete critique of BS1116 and BS1116.1, a protocol assembled by experts in the field and vetted by experts from something like 30 countries before it was accepted as an international standard.

That's what you'll need to do for starters. Then you'll have to refute an entire branch of psychometrics, a branch of psychometrics that has shown its worth in hearing loss compensation, articulation understanding, audio processing, and many other branches of technological endeavor guided by science, many of which you probably possess yourself. (i.e. cell phones, TV, stereo system ...) The very standards for analog systems come from the branch of science that you have fully denied the validity of.

So, let's see it. You talk the talk, now you walk the walk.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There may be reasons to not want to take someone else's blind test. But there is no reason you should not take these tests on your own and test your hypothesis of how good your hearing assessment really is. No one will be looking at the results but you. Without this, you don't know if you are wrong 1% of time or 99%!

You found the reason not to self test, Amir; to not know that you are wrong. Can't say that I blame them. They hear the massive expansion the soundstage from an IC upgrade. They get closer to the original event than the recording itself. They hear discreet, height location differentiated by instrument. Imagine what a disappointment reality will be to these guys.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

There may be reasons to not want to take someone else's blind test. But there is no reason you should not take these tests on your own and test your hypothesis of how good your hearing assessment really is. No one will be looking at the results but you. Without this, you don't know if you are wrong 1% of time or 99%!

I regularly make audiograms during medical appointments - it is the only simple blind audio test that I consider reliable.

The big issue with the causal blind tests - even your own behind closed doors - is that you will never know how to interpret them and what is the real origin of the results. Unless someone is in audio mainly because has hidden masochist tendencies my advice is that we should stay away from this type of tests.

 

[FrantzM]

I regularly make audiograms during medical appointments - it is the only simple blind audio test that I consider reliable.

The big issue with the causal blind tests - even your own behind closed doors - is that you will never know how to interpret them and what is the real origin of the results. Unless someone is in audio mainly because has hidden masochist tendencies my advice is that we should stay away from this type of tests.

While of course, you will know how to interpret sighted tests... No need to reply. I got your points

 

[microstrip]

While of course, you will know how to interpret sighted tests... No need to reply. I got your points

I only have a few ideas of how to interpret them, and mainly on what to focus - it would be really nice if someone with more expertise than me could help. But the main idea came form Siegfried Linkwitz site long ago - try to compare to life references of real music, not to the performance of audio systems. No need to reply, I understand that your long and great sighted experience is intransmissible.

 

[Gregadd]

There is no point in arguing with a lawyer. It is their job to warp peoples' perception to make [not necessarily prove] their point.

Never take an ABX Test? What are you afraid of?

Invalid results. Did nto you read the above posts?

 

[Ron Party]

Well, here's another attorney with roughly the same numbers of years of experience in the courtroom, civil and criminal, who would gladly take up the arguement on behalf of the scientific community. It'd be fun, Greg, but it sure wouldn't change anyone's mind. In the mean time, listening to music and going to concerts would be a far better use of our time and energy. Right now, I am traveling in the way-back machine and am listening to The Ink Spots.

 

[Gregadd]

It is human nature after being baited to want to accept the challenge and settle things once and for all.
Human nature will get you into trouble.

Think about it. The challenger has called your product snake oil,you incompetent and a fraud or delusional. Just witness j.j.s behavior here. Any test he puts forward is designed to show just that. The entire endeavor is skewed in his favor. He even owns the default position.

I was called a Paul Ryan type liar who indulges in logical fallacies. No need to list all the personal attacks. I don't sell anything so I have nothing to lose. Imagine if you were trying to sell a product or a magazine.

If you decide to take an ABX be sure what the hypothesis is clear and how proof will be handled. ABX normally measures whether you can distinguish between A and B. Make sure you actually prove something. Get it in writing.

Make sure what you claim to have heard is present in the test. So for example if HP claims an amplifier is better because it was able to allow him to decipher a word that was unclear with previous amplifiers . He should have that musical selection as part of his test. It makes no sense to play other music .
If some claim there sis no difference between a coat hanger and a premium cable then hold them to it. That unshielded coat hanger should act just like an antenna. A properly shielded cable should be clearly superior
.Remember that resolution is volume dependent. Iou need source material that is capable of resolving the differences you claim you heard. Suppose you claim something lowers the noise floor. it might not at low volume but it may athigh volume, If it delivers better bass then make sure the source material and equipment can deliver. This is where practice comes in. try to demonstrate at home. I assume you have heard the difference be fore or you would not make the claim. One thing you can do is invite your challenger over and try to demonstrate what you hear in an informal setting,.
It's a good idea to not have your challenger present during the test. This will undoubtedly add unwanted stress.
This is is not a test it war.

 

[Gregadd]

Well, here's another attorney with roughly the same numbers of years of experience in the courtroom, civil and criminal, who would gladly take up the arguement on behalf of the scientific community. It'd be fun, Greg, but it sure wouldn't change anyone's mind. In the mean time, listening to music and going to concerts would be a far better use of our time and energy. Right now, I am traveling in the way-back machine and am listening to The Ink Spots.

I thought I was arguing on behalf of the scientific community? My father loved the Inkspots.

 

[amirm]

This is is not a test it war.

Your signature says this "Lighten up. It's just a hobby." It can't both be that and war!

 

[Gregadd]

Your signature says this "Lighten up. It's just a hobby." It can't both be that and war!

Amir you are right as usual. I spoke to a specific type of ABX challenge. When you call someone a fraud and threaten torefer them to the state attorney general that is "war" I can provide example

I think I made my point. I'm about done here,

 

[NorthStar]

Well, here's another attorney with roughly the same numbers of years of experience in the courtroom, civil and criminal, who would gladly take up the arguement on behalf of the scientific community. It'd be fun, Greg, but it sure wouldn't change anyone's mind. In the mean time, listening to music and going to concerts would be a far better use of our time and energy. Right now, I am traveling in the way-back machine and am listening to The Ink Spots.

Ron, you're an attorney as well? ...You're my favorite one here from all the other ones that I know of. :b ...I know three now, including you.

 

[Gregadd]

You found the reason not to self test, Amir; to not know that you are wrong. Can't say that I blame them. They hear the massive expansion the soundstage from an IC upgrade. They get closer to the original event than the recording itself. They hear discreet, height location differentiated by instrument. Imagine what a disappointment reality will be to these guys.

Tim

Just curious Tim how would any of those things be obscured by a blind test?

Like I said we are not playing the same game .
No offense intended.

 

[j_j]

Just witness j.j.s behavior here. Any test he puts forward is designed to show just that. The entire endeavor is skewed in his favor.

Are you, or are you not, aware that skewing a test in order to win an argument is a very serious kind of scientific misconduct?

Your statement is utterly defamatory and false.

 

[j_j]

When you call someone a fraud and threaten torefer them to the state attorney general that is "war" I can provide example

Really? Who did that? I've criticized your mistaken objections to DBT testing, but I haven't seen anyone threatening you with being referred to an attorney general in this thread. Could you be a bit more specific with your accusations, and make it clear who made this thread?

I'm curious to see if you're extrapolating something, or if someone did actually promise such a referral.

Note: I have no information regarding any ABX tests you have taken, and even if I had your side, would only know one side of the story.

 

[j_j]

I thought I was arguing on behalf of the scientific community? My father loved the Inkspots.

You have defamed at least one member of the scientific community, completely misstated the facts regarding the proof of the universal negative (again, notice the word "universal" which you have to this time avoided addressing), and in general raised the misinformation level in this discussion.

Misinformation is not in any fashion "on behalf of the scientific community".

 

[treitz3]

Hello, gentlemen. One of the goals of this forum is to have cordial conversations without the level of bickering and angst that other forums tend to create. While a good debate is always welcome, cordial participation is a key requisite of being a member in our forum. Please allow me to say to all parties involved with this thread that from now on, speak as if you were talking to a college professor, your grandfather or the most admired and respected person you can think of.

Let's lighten the tone of this discussion please. Points have been made, questions have been asked. Please take the time to respond in a manner worthy of this forum and worthy of the utmost respect toward any member of this forum. You never know who you may be talking too and what experience they may have or have had in our shared hobby.

Tom

 

[Orb]

Gregadd,
just so you know JJ is not a fraud and does has access to a lot of modern research.
If you wish to debate this, consider John Atkinson's approach (has a in-depth science research background before becoming an audio journalist) who has his own views specifically relating to certain ABX testing and critically the scope of certain tests and conclusions reached.
It is also fair to say JA also has a lot of respect for JJ due to his research work and knowledge in the industry, even though they may subtly disagree (key point being subtle divergence) on some subjects.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just curious Tim how would any of those things be obscured by a blind test?

Like I said we are not playing the same game .
No offense intended.

I'm not playing a game, but I'm not sure we're speaking the same language; none of those things would be obscured by blind listening.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I never called any one a fraudkr defamed anyone. You continue. If you find disagreement with you defamatory that's your problem. Truth is a defense and an opinion is not defamatory
I never said J.J.or anyone else actually referred me or anyone else to the attorney general. I do recall others suggesting it and seeung a video where a representative of the attorney spoket at an udio seminar. I am not in the habit of repeating myself everytime someone requests.
As for your demands for proof. Let me say this. Proof the you can prove the universal negative is not essential to my argument here. However presenting an article by an experts who claims that noon e in his field believes that you cannot prove the negative. Your attempt to rebut by moving the gaol post and adding the word universal notwithstanding. Please rebut his article. You can't.

Again for purposes of this argument I need not address the issue of whether j.j. deserves respect. I assume everybody deserves respect and treat them accordingly. The person deserves respect however their opinions do not warrant deference.