Re: More from Qaaludeovic

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:24:32 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


>You only ABX equipment where there is a reasonable
>controversy as to whether they sound different.
>
>> But according to Arny and his crowd all the "properly
>> designed" components are the same electronically: cables,
>> preamps, amps, cdplayers, dacs so all of them must sound
>> the same,when ABX tested.
>
>This would be an highly advanced concept for you Ludovic,
>its what's known as a truism.

Nope. A truism is a self-evident truth. Which that isn't.

>All well-designed cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs
>sound the same because they have the mission of sounding the
>same.

A mission? Hmmm, sounds important. So you're saying that in
electronics, whatever is intended ultimately comes to be.

>All cables, preamps, amps, cd players, dacs that
>sound the same provide evidence that they are well-designed.
>If they don't sound the same, then they have failed their
>mission, and its fair to say that they are not
>well-designed.

You mean sounds the same to you or to me?

>However, just sounding the same is not the
>only criteria for something being well-designed. The device
>must also meet the other conventional economic, usability
>and durability criteria.

Correct. And those factors are not sufficiently taken into account.

>> Loudspeakers (and phono cartridges?) "we all know" sound
>> different.
>
>Phono cartridges and speakers should also sound the same. In
>the case of phono cartridges some sound the same, some sound
>different.

Care to list which is which. :-)

>http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_phca.htm
>
>> So no need for ABX. As the sainted leader says
>> it is a "poor choice"- no room for doubt..
>
>Just observing what should be obvious.
>
>> In other words the only components worthy of a listening
>> test are those that "we know" will sound the same.
>
>Wrong again. There has to be a reasonble controversy.

And then ABX settles the controversy by "proving" there's no
difference. I wish you would list the occasions when ABX has
demonstrated the difference between "non-faulty" and similarly
measuring amplifiers. It shouldn't take long.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stereophile still under Randis radar
    ... > If the "our" is working audio pros, ... > ABX is like this narrow little tool - good for resolving ... items really sound different. ... In practice we throw mics around ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Mikey trips over his laces.
    ... >>> that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers. ... Do not use "clean". ... >>> an internal reference of undistorted sound. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Mikey trips over his laces.
    ... >> Well, well, Mikey never doubted. ... >> sound is like. ... > idea of what clean sounds like? ... an ABX box cannot be ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Ayre C-5xe Universal "Silver Disc" Player
    ... cryptonym for ABX) listening test results? ... Heathkit that was always shy of its rated 7 watts and had tone controls ... They would have nver managed without ABX. ... did sound the same to most of the panelists. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
    ... >> alternatives sound significantly different". ... >> DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS. ... >>> Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it ... > you came into this situation with a bogus listening test ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)