Tips for ABX Tests
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
- Status
j.j. I will help you out one last time. See my thread Audio McCarthyism on this site. In it you 'll find the article Please read it. Most of the points you raised I have already responded to as the result of challengers who share your opinions. I am 60.years old and it takes a while to remember. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7663-Audio-McCarthyism
Here is the link
Here is the link
It's great that a few people want to spread their beliefs in astrology, creationism and the rest of it (for example) but it becomes a problem when the education system begins to teach those things officially and to suppress science. People who have, at considerable personal cost, trained their minds to be rational and scientific react quite strongly against it.
Isn't just about everybody on WBF a bit McCarthyist about dynamics in music? Some nice people are spreading their harmless ideas about how music sounds better if it is heavily compressed, clipped and generally made louder, and the public doesn't seem to object, buying it to play on their iPods and tiny speakers while travelling to work. Yet some entirely unreasonable 'objectivists' are actually attempting to measure the dynamics scientifically, kicking up a fuss and trying to spoil the fun. Why not live and let live? Answer: because it ruins it for the discerning folk who actually give a toss and who have an idea about how things work. It could even kill off the music industry, ruining it for everyone.
Telling people that they can't have a decent music system for less than $50,000? Telling them that changing a $2000 wire makes a night-and-day difference? Telling them that only a half ton record deck can sound any good? And all without any science or evidence from blind listening tests to back it up? It's enough to make the man-in-the-street stick with their iPod. It's enough to kill off the hi fi industry.
At LEAST a half ton record deck mounted on a full ton polished granite slab floating in a pool of mercury and leveled to within two yocto parsecs.
I am reading everything in this thread, and all the other threads as well.
* j_j for the past few weeks+ here is contributing a lot of his scientific expertise, and I am afraid of losing him.
I am learning a lot from this expert gentleman, and I don't want him to feel uncomfortable here among all the good people.
* j_j for the past few weeks+ here is contributing a lot of his scientific expertise, and I am afraid of losing him.
I am learning a lot from this expert gentleman, and I don't want him to feel uncomfortable here among all the good people.
You know very well that you accused me of proposing biased tests. That is a serious professional accusation.
Do you insist on maintaining this accusation?
Yes, or no?
Your objections in any other thread do not in any way justify the accusations you have made in regard to me in this thread.
J.j. You have daggers in the inside of your eyelids.
Here is what I said:
Amir you are right as usual. I spoke to a specific type of ABX challenge. When you call someone a fraud and threaten to refer them to the state attorney general that is "war" I can provide example"
Point one. it was addressed to Amir. no where is your name or anyone else mentioned in my statement.
Point two: Nowhere do I claim anyone else or you made that accusation against me. I was speaking in general.
Point three nas the article there was an accusation of fraud and threats of referral to the attorney general.
Did you read the article?
Get the chip of our soldier.
I'll say it once again ABX is flawed. . I have tried to support it with the above arguments. I get it. You are unimpressed. To the extent you continue to rely on it yes you rely on a flawed test IMO. If you take that as a personal insult that is not my fault.
I understand and you can sympathize with me. I once was firmly in the objectivist camp. I have a science background. Ot offends me now when someone saysall you need is zipcord and a pioneer receiver. When my ears tell me otherwise. I participate on these forums in hopes some can proceed directly to audio nirvana and avoid the long trip I took. There is no money in for me. Indeed as you can see I take a lot of flack.
Gregadd,
it was just a suggestion (more of a hint) on a way to move forward if you wanted to really debate this as it is a subject JA himself has been involved in many times (both from experiment and debate perspective), and has different opinion/conclusion to JJ.
You may find some of his debates-comments-style useful.
Cheers
Orb
it was just a suggestion (more of a hint) on a way to move forward if you wanted to really debate this as it is a subject JA himself has been involved in many times (both from experiment and debate perspective), and has different opinion/conclusion to JJ.
You may find some of his debates-comments-style useful.
Cheers
Orb
A lot of people seem to buy into the belief that “you can’t prove a negative!” and use it in order to deflect criticism or to keep themselves from fulfilling the burden of proof on their position. In fact, this never fails to annoy me, because it’s most definitely not true that “you can’t prove a negative.”
First of all, it’s important to remember that the actual saying is “you can’t prove a universal negative,” not “you can’t prove a negative.” A universal negative is a statement of the sort “there is no X such as…” (such as the famous “there are no teacups on the Moon” or “there are no black swans”). But people often use the “you can’t prove a negative” argument to prove that a statement of the sort “X is false” or “X is impossible” or “X cannot be proven” cannot be made. But a statement like “X is false” is not a universal negative.
First of all, it’s important to remember that the actual saying is “you can’t prove a universal negative,” not “you can’t prove a negative.” A universal negative is a statement of the sort “there is no X such as…” (such as the famous “there are no teacups on the Moon” or “there are no black swans”). But people often use the “you can’t prove a negative” argument to prove that a statement of the sort “X is false” or “X is impossible” or “X cannot be proven” cannot be made. But a statement like “X is false” is not a universal negative.
It is an often heard assertion in regards to the existence of God. In other words, no atheist can disprove the existence of God, but that is in the same way you can’t prove a universal negative. However, mathematically such a statement is utterly absurd. In William Dunham’s “A Mathematical Universe” (1997) he writes:
Some of the greatest, most profound mathematical arguments demonstrate that certain numbers, certain shapes, certain geometric constructions do not and cannot exist. And such nonexistence is established using the most incisive weapon of all: cold, hard logic.
(cp. 1997, p. 123)
In other words according to Dunham, “Mathematicians know better” (I
Some of the greatest, most profound mathematical arguments demonstrate that certain numbers, certain shapes, certain geometric constructions do not and cannot exist. And such nonexistence is established using the most incisive weapon of all: cold, hard logic.
(cp. 1997, p. 123)
In other words according to Dunham, “Mathematicians know better” (I
And what we believe, and what science reveals, and what God is are three different things related only by their differences.
Greg, the scientific community has firmly established what it believes in and what it doesn't. You have no prayer of changing their stand by arguing in a forum. It simply is the case that sighted results won't be trusted whatsoever. It is not JJ that is saying that. It is not a couple of people who are saying that. It is the entire community that works under the auspicious of *audio science*. The best course of action to say that you disagree and move on. You are not going to remotely get close to any reasoning that would change any person in that community. And if you are trying to convince people in your own camp, well, they don't need any convincing because they are already in your camp!
And I'll point out to you that ABX tests at absolute threshold can detect a level difference that is remarkably close to the natural noise of air at room temperature.
Ergo, your contention is utterly refuted.
BAD abx tests, yeah. You betcha. There are some of those, and no, I won't be more specific.
Did you, or your buddy who piped up with a bunch of misguided quackery ever bother to read BS1116? It's out there on the net, you know, for free.
- Status
Similar threads
