Re: ABX a waste of time for hobbyists

"124" <rooggadsee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:1139417798.344088.81860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you for the correction. I mistakenly left out the
part about if lab measurements predict that no
differences should be detectable in the devices under
test.

This is the basis of many DBTs that have been done. Those who are
enthusiastic about the sound quality of a particular amplifier claim
impressive sonic gains when through measurements suggest that while the
amplifier's performance is good, there *should* be no special advantage.
That turns out to be the outcome of the DBT.

This reminds me of Ludovic Mirabel who keeps
insisting that double-blind tests cannot reveal a
difference between components.

I read his claim stating that no such differences have ever been found. He
then puts a number of exceptional and illogical constraints on the
situation.

Very strange. And what
is it with all these people who keep insisting that
double-blind tests masks the differences? Stress?

The situations that these people seem to believe in are like an audio snipe
hunt. There's no guarantee, other than their groundless, illogical and
anti-scientific faith in subjective reviewers that they diefy, that any
audible difference should exist. When no difference is found, they attack
the bearer of the bad news.

One
better believe it is stressful if one has even the
slightest doubt that one cannot hear a difference.

Part of the problem is the hype that often surrounds the claims.

We had an audio dealer here who frequently claimed that the latest-greatest
high-priced power amp he had received for sale provided "mind-blowing"
improvements. If he believed what he said, then there would be no reason for
him to be especially careful with his listening test. When his beliefs were
finally put to a test, he was hung over and his usual sweet arrogant self.
Needless to say, he failed.

We had another loud-mouthed audio salesman who made similar claims about
speaker wires. I strongly recommended to him that he be very careful about
his listening test, and do specific listener training exercises before he
allowed himself to be tested. Needless to say, he denied the validity of my
advice. When his beliefs were finally put to a test, he was his usual sweet
arrogant self. Needless to say, he failed.

Switching apparatus? Well, I suppose if one wanted to do
it the hard way, one can get someone to do manual
plugging and unplugging of wires.

This has been done a number of times. One such set of tests were performed
by The members of The Audiophile Society of Westchester County at the behest
of the late Hy Kichalsky, a well-known high end audiophile and true
believer, and Larry Greenhill, the Stereophile reviewer. No joy.


All the excuses under the sun, but the subjectivists
refuse to accept the most plausible answer: differences
were not detected, because there were no differences to
be heard.

That would involve them admitting that they had made a mistake. Kryptonite!

Often the simplest explanation is the best
explanation.

It has take some decades for the elaborate arguments of say Ludovic Mirabel
to evolve.

The orthodox view is that no differences
are detectable if measurements predict that no
differences are detectable.

Agreed.

Extraordinary claims call for
extraordinary evidence to support these claims.

I would settle for ordinary but reliable evidence. ;-)

So far,
the subjectivists have not provided even the tiniest
shreds of evidence to support their claim.

Well other than these elaborate and convoluted arguments. If you tire of
Mirabel's convoluted conflations of hypotheses and fantasy, there is always
Sterephile's "Listener's Manifesto".

I doubt that
the subjectivists will ever be able to provide even this
tiniest bit of evidence.

At this point they've had over 30 years to show us "the beef".

The silence is deafening.

George M. Middius, please insert your rant here.

I suspect that Middius is trying to win a bet over how many people he can
suck in with his chidlish lame, personal-attack-ridden rants.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for Sillybot about aBxism
    ... the evidence of effectiveness is objectively ... above you'd think he never heard of measurements, ... simply a subset of DBTs. ... compare them to average thresholds in the literature. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Question for Sillybot about aBxism
    ... the evidence of effectiveness is objectively ... above you'd think he never heard of measurements, ... simply a subset of DBTs. ... compare them to average thresholds in the literature. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Catholic Miller rationionalizes his practical atheism
    ... I take the measurements. ... >> testable, like string theory. ... it is usually related to preexisting knowledge of the designers. ... If no evidence of human ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Video and the "Expanding Earth"
    ... Subduction is well supported by evidence as an ongoing process in the ... There is no measurements which show that the earth is expanding ... the change of direction in the Pacific from the age pattern to ... expansion is not constant, it is the trend over time which is more ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: interesting look at global warming
    ... The measured global mean temperature over the last century and the measured increase in CO2 abundance since about 1850 is convincing experimental evidence. ... experiment is a quite appropriate word here since our massive release of CO2 actually is an experiment we perform on the entire Earth. ... Only future temperature measurements will show whether it's true or not. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)