A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

doctor r

arny wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misinformation and grotesque errors that fill the previous several posts by DarqueKnight, AKA RAIFE F. SMITH II .

And your point at using a two year old thread to take a personal barb at a member is? Your only posts (7) performed just this morning to benefit whom?

Erik Tracy

doctor r wrote: »

And your point at using a two year old thread to take a personal barb at a member is? Your only posts (7) performed just this morning to benefit whom?

Must be a slow day at AVS

markmarc

arny wrote: »

The conclusion that "They (meaning DBT advocates) ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound" is not warranted by the evidence presented above, and the evidence presented above is woefully incomplete and even contradicts the author's conclusion.

I think that I will just back up a few lines above the above summary to show where this paper goes awry:

"According to **** and Vanderkooy, It is better to blindfold or otherwise visually handicap music listeners."

Nonsense. A fabrication. I have known **** and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.

"According to Clark, the best ear training is gained from listening to pink noise, sine waves, pulses and artificially enhanced distortion."

Again nonsense and a complete fabrication. Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. Those who are intersted in more details can start here: http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/

Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misinformation and grotesque errors that fill the previous several posts by DarqueKnight, AKA RAIFE F. SMITH II .

You give no quotes from the works of ****, Vanderkooy, and Clark to back up your position. You respectfully need to bring facts instead of just having a personal history with these men. Only then will I and others be able to fairly judge your viewpoint.

Face

markmarc wrote: »

You give no quotes from the works of ****, Vanderkooy, and Clark to back up your position. You respectfully need to bring facts instead of just having a personal history with these men. Only then will I and others be able to fairly judge your viewpoint.

He can't figure out how to use the quote feature on a message board, 'nuff said.

DarqueKnight

I respectfully request that we be cordial and respectful to our new member, Arny. Although this topic is controversial and both sides can be emotionally invested in their beliefs, there is no reason why each side cannot discuss their views in a non-rancorous and respectful manner.

I will be posting my response to Arny's comments later today.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and patience.

DarqueKnight

Hi Arny (AKA Arnold B. Krueger),

I am always happy to discuss and/or clarify any of the points in my writings. I am also happy to admit error and take immediate corrective action. However, in this case, you have made general accusations of error without supporting documentation. I will elaborate.

For those not familiar with Arny, he is a staunch proponent of the use of the ABX protocol in stereophonic testing. His writings can be easily found by doing an Internet search on "Arnold B. Krueger ABX". He is also a frequent contributor to the hydrogenaudio.com forum and the Audio Video Science (avsforum.com) forum.

arny wrote: »

The conclusion that "They (meaning DBT advocates) ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound" is not warranted by the evidence presented above, and the evidence presented above is woefully incomplete and even contradicts the author's conclusion.

arny wrote: »

I think that I will just back up a few lines above the above summary to show where this paper goes awry:

arny wrote: »

"According to **** and Vanderkooy, It is better to blindfold or otherwise visually handicap music listeners."

Nonsense. A fabrication. I have known **** and Vanderkooy personally for decades, have sat with them in DBTs whose results they subsequently published in the JAES, and they think no such thing, and engage in no such practices.

The following quotes are from this paper by Stanley P. **** and John Vanderkooy:

"The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, No. 7/8, July/August 1981, pp. 482-491.

"The listening tests must be conducted blind, and preferably double-blind. A blind test is one in which the subject is unaware of which component he is hearing at any given instant. This precaution is absolutely essential in order to remove as a possible source of bias any preconceptions which the subject might have as to the attributes of the components being auditioned." [p. 485, col. 1, par. 3, and col. 2, par. 1]

"The test must be blind or preferably double-blind. To implement such tests we advocate the use of A/B switchboxes. The box itself can be tested for audibly intrusive effects, and several embellishment are described which allow double-blind procedures to be used in listening tests." [abstract, par. 2]

"One improvement to the Fig. 2 circuit (A/B switchbox) is shown in Fig. 3: the A/B/X test (A/B/X switchbox). Rather than comparing position A with position B, as in Fig. 2, and trying to hear and characterize any differences between them, in the A/B/X test the positions A and B always represent the same components, and only position X is randomized." [p. 487, col. 1, par. 3]

The question that comes to mind is, how can we conduct "blind" loudspeaker tests? In order for blind tests to be valid, the listener must be "unaware of which component he is hearing at any given instant". The only efficient way I know to make a listener unaware of which loudspeaker he is listening to is to place a curtain in front of the loudspeakers or place a blindfold over the eyes of the listener. Since Arny has some personal knowledge of Lipschitz's and Vanderkooy's A/B/X test sessions, it is hoped that he will elaborate on what was done.

Blindfolding the listener can induce stress. Placing a curtain between the listener and the loudspeakers can also induce stress. The curtain can also interfere with the listener's spatial (stereo imaging) perception.

An A/B or A/B/X switchbox could be used to switch between co-located pairs of loudspeakers, but this would introduce an acoustically unrealistic listening element (two pairs of loudspeakers in the same room) which would affect room response and might introduce audible artifacts. Furthermore, in the absence of a curtain or a blindfold, I think most people would be able to tell which of the stereo pairs was playing while switching between them.

arny wrote: »

"According to Clark, the best ear training is gained from listening to pink noise, sine waves, pulses and artificially enhanced distortion."

Again nonsense and a complete fabrication. Clark's (Clark is a decades-long personal friend, one time business partner, AES Fellow and past AES national officer, a highly -respected and internationally known audio expert) primary tool for listener training is a collection of music from regular commercial soruces, much highly appreciated by other listening test advocates both sighted and blind, that is known as the LTT. Those who are intersted in more details can start here: http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/

I refer Arny and other readers to the following paper by David Clark:

"Ten Years Of A/B/X Testing", 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, NY, October 1991.

"The sensitivity of the A/B/X test can be tested by comparing it to a long-term listening session with infrequent switching and low stress. Audio magazine encouraged the present author and Lawrence L. Greenhill to undertake such a comparison in 1984. Unfortunately, the results were never published. The experiment used a fixed detection task of identifying whether or not the audio was passed through a nonlinear circuit which generated 2.5% total harmonic distortion on a sine wave. " [p. 5, par. 4]

"If listeners are told only that two very similar presentations are audibly different, they may not have enough time to hear the difference. However, if the same listeners are exposed to an exaggerated difference of the same type, they will know what to listen for as the difference is reduced. This training brings listeners close to their best performance very quickly.

In a series of tests to detect the "Grunge" nonlinearity (distortion) used in previous tests, program material was also varied. The sound of grunge was first demonstrated at 13% (calibrated by total harmonic distortion) on sine wave, flute and big band jazz ensemble." [p. 6, par. 6]

"The concept of training and program material optimization can and should be applied to testing audio components. Distortion of electronic devices can be increased by cascading multiple units or by a method of listening to only the difference between output and input. Recording, storage and transmission media can have distortion made audible by cascading and multiple generations." [p. 7, par. 2]

The following quote is from this paper by David Clark:

"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.

"Great improvements in resolution can be achieved if the listener knows what to listen for. Sensitizing tests can use pink noise, sine waves, or pulses as appropriate to hear a difference. Sometimes an artificially enhanced distortion can be produced by reducing feedback or connecting multiple devices in series for distortion build-up. The listener is then more able to hear the difference on music." [p. 332, col. 2, par. 4]

It is interesting to note that in the Acknowledgement section of Clark's "High-Resolution...." paper, he mentions assistance from Arny (A. B. Kreuger):

"The author wishes to acknowledge his coworkers in this project, A. B. Kreuger, D. Carlstrom, B. F. Muller, A. Greenia, and F. James."

It is not clear to me why Arny would characterize my reporting of David Clark's advocacy of ear training using pink noise, sine waves, pulses and high levels of distortion as "nonsense and a complete fabrication". Anyone is free to obtain a copy of Mr. Clark's publications and read for themselves. Hopefully, Arny will explain.

On another forum (avsforum.com), while I was attempting to engage in a discussion on biwiring, Arny popped in and accused me of stating that Bell Labs scientists invented the ABX protocol (here). I explained to Arny (here) that nowhere did I state that ABX was invented by Bell Labs scientists. My point was that Bell Labs scientists utilized such difference tests for voice circuit testing, but switched to subjective methods with trained listeners when evaluating the home stereo systems they invented.

arny wrote: »

Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misinformation and grotesque errors that fill the previous several posts by DarqueKnight, AKA RAIFE F. SMITH II .

In light of my explanations above, it would be edifying if Arny would specifically point out the "misinformation and grotesque errors" in my writings.

I would also like to read Arny's views on how the ABX protocol can be used to evaluate differences in stereophonic performance parameters between two components. Some typical stereophonic performance parameters are:

1. Sound stage width,
2. Sound stage height,
3. Sound stage depth,
4. Stable stereo image placement,
5. Clarity,
6. Detail,
7. Dynamics (dynamic range),
8. Tactile impact,
9. Sonic realism.

---

As the author of this thread, I again ask that posters be courteous and respectful in their replies. It is always good to hear other well thought out, yet different, opinions.

Thanks.

CoolJazz

So much of this recent questioning and Darknights nicely posted information rely on information from the AES. Due to developments of the last couple years, I have to seriously evaluate whether ANY JAES information has the slightest credibility!

This is after a self proclaimed "audio expert" made his presentation of severely flawed information "debunking audio myths" and then flaunted his new found "credentials" around the web. Then he's went on to capitalize on this platform and very recently released a book memorizing his very abbreviated knowledge on all things audio. As a result we now know that it appears the AES will accept and attach it's name to anything, anybody wants to present! It would certainly appear that without any credibility or review, that anyone can wind up with the AES credibility (as long as it lasts anyway) to any material anybody wants to make up and write (or present) in a formal way!

So how can we take seriously any references to any of these studies? Why would we assume that any of the AES information has the slightest bit of fact in them?

Care to comment....either our newcomer, Arny, or Raife? This is not meant to open discussion in this thread as to what he presented, just as to how can we weigh any JAES information. This is meant as no disrespect to either of you gentleman, simply as to the credibility that we should be able to attach to the AES name since so much of this topic revolves around this information.

Thank you!

CJ

DarqueKnight

CoolJazz wrote: »

So much of this recent questioning and Darknights nicely posted information rely on information from the AES. Due to developments of the last couple years, I have to seriously evaluate whether ANY JAES information has the slightest credibility!

This is after a self proclaimed "audio expert" made his presentation of severely flawed information "debunking audio myths" and then flaunted his new found "credentials" around the web. Then he's went on to capitalize on this platform and very recently released a book memorizing his very abbreviated knowledge on all things audio. As a result we now know that it appears the AES will accept and attach it's name to anything, anybody wants to present!

It would certainly appear that without any credibility or review, that anyone can wind up with the AES credibility (as long as it lasts anyway) to any material anybody wants to make up and write (or present) in a formal way!

So how can we take seriously any references to any of these studies? Why would we assume that any of the AES information has the slightest bit of fact in them?

I discussed this in another thread:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The following disclaimer is appended to every AES convention paper in my possession from the late 1990's and earlier:

"This preprint has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript, without editing, corrections or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents."

The AES convention papers I have read dating from the early 2000's and onward all display the following disclaimer:

"The papers at this Convention have been selected on the basis of a submitted abstract and extended precis that have been peer reviewed by at least two qualified anonymous reviewers. This convention paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript, without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board."

AES Journal papers go through a rigorous peer-review process similar to that of any other scientific journal.

AS I have said before, whether a document appears in a peer-reviewed journal or tacked to a bulletin board, we should use reasoning, and perhaps further study, to determine if the ideas in the document make sense within the context of their application.

doctor r

Critical reading of any scientific or medical peer reviewed article is mandatory. Even with the best peer scrutiny certain articles are published in very reputable journals that unfortunately are revealed subsequently to contain misinterpreted or outright false information. This does not negate all the information previously published in the journal or decimate its reputation. These publications do not claim to publish absolute truth. They publish information and ideas to be consumed, analyzed, critiqued, and possibly disproven. This is their function.

arny

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Hi Arny (AKA Arnold B. Krueger),

I would also like to read Arny's views on how the ABX protocol can be used to evaluate differences in stereophonic performance parameters between two components. Some typical stereophonic performance parameters are:

1. Sound stage width,
2. Sound stage height,
3. Sound stage depth,
4. Stable stereo image placement,
5. Clarity,
6. Detail,
7. Dynamics (dynamic range),
8. Tactile impact,
9. Sonic realism.

Seems self evident.

(1) Line up program material that seems to make the difference in question most obvious.

(2) Do listener training to become as reliable as possible at correctly identifying the difference. Listener training may involve program material that is *doctored* to make the difference super-obvious, and then we work down in logical steps until real world amounts of the difference seem reliably audible.

(3) Do trials "For the record" to verify that the difference is in fact reliably audible.

(4) If (3) fails, go back to (1) and repeat until a clear trend is found. If believable results are obtained in (3), we are done!

DarqueKnight

arny wrote: »

Seems self evident.

Not to me. I ask that you indulge me a bit.

arny wrote: »

(1) Line up program material that seems to make the difference in question most obvious.

If I buy two brands of preamps, how can I immediately know what the "difference in question" is? I don't know whether there is an audible difference or not...correct? How can I line up program material that will make a difference become obvious if I don't even know if there is an audible difference?

I thought the purpose of ABX testing was to evaluate whether or not a difference exists. You seem to be advocating going into a testing situation already knowing that there is a difference.

arny wrote: »

(2) Do listener training to become as reliable as possible at correctly identifying the difference. Listener training may involve program material that is *doctored* to make the difference super-obvious, and then we work down in logical steps until real world amounts of the difference seem reliably audible.

Again, if I don't know what the difference is, or even if there is a difference, how can I train for it?

Again, if I buy preamps A and B, give me an example of doctored program material I can select that will make any and every possible difference, if any, super obvious.

Two issues I have with "doctored" program material:

1. Such material may not be easily obtainable to consumers.
2. Such material is not representative of the music consumers will play on their home stereo systems.

I believe that a test methodology should be representative of actual use conditions. Do you agree or disagree?

Obviously, since I am having difficulty understanding the implementation of your (1) and (2), I do not see the value in doing your (3) and (4).

I am surprised that you did not address my responses to your concern about my alleged "misinformation and grotesque errors". Could you take some time to speak to that?

DarqueKnight

arny wrote: »

(2) Do listener training to become as reliable as possible at correctly identifying the difference. Listener training may involve program material that is *doctored* to make the difference super-obvious, and then we work down in logical steps until real world amounts of the difference seem reliably audible.

Thinking further about (2) above, can you point me to any ABX tests that used *doctored* program material in the evaluation of all or any of the following?:

1. Sound stage width,
2. Sound stage height,
3. Sound stage depth,
4. Stable stereo image placement,
5. Clarity,
6. Detail,
7. Dynamics (dynamic range),
8. Tactile impact,
9. Sonic realism.

Regarding the "real world amounts" you mentioned. How should "real world" and exaggerated amounts of items 1-9 be quantified? For example, what are real world amounts of sound stage width and depth to "work down to"?

arny

DarqueKnight wrote:

If I buy two brands of preamps, how can I immediately know what the "difference in question" is?

The two problematical words are "immediately" and "know". If you put your Science hat on, then the problem with the word "know" is again, self-evident. If you are mature adult you know from experience that many worthwhile things do not happen immediately. In fact that something does not happen immediately almost seems to be a prerequisite for "worthwhile".

I don't know whether there is an audible difference or not...correct?

If you are the man of Science that you seem to want to represent, then you don't need me to answer that question! ;-)

Absent compelling evidence, the idea that an audible difference exists is a hypothesis,no?

How can I line up program material that will make a difference become obvious if I don't even know if there is an audible difference?

To proceed rationally and scientifically, we have to make the transition from not knowing to knowing by reasonable means, no? This is a general problem in Science, no. It is hardly unique to audio, right?

I thought the purpose of ABX testing was to evaluate whether or not a difference exists.

True, and of course ABX is just one such means of doing so of many.

You seem to be advocating going into a testing situation already knowing that there is a difference.

No, I advocate going into a testing situation with a testable hypothesis. If I did not do this, then as an experimentalist I would be more confused and poorly directed than a middle school or late primary school student who is finding out about Science for the first time. ;-)

Again, if I don't know what the difference is, or even if there is a difference, how can I train for it?

Same answer. I might add that based on your writings, you seem to have no problem coming up with what I see as being testible hypothesis of this nature. So, I am mystified why you are asking such simple questions or why you have not already figured out how to properly and logically manage this situation.

Again, if I buy preamps A and B, give me an example of doctored program material I can select that will make any and every possible difference, if any, super obvious.

Same answer. You seem to have no problem asserting that audible differences exist. You and I may differ that your established facts appear to be testable hypothesis to me. If you can logically assert that audible differences exist, then you must have found program material that makes differences audible. You even sometimes mention the names of commercial recordings in a way that I think you believe that it has this property. Whether or not it has this property is to me again, a testable hypothesis.

Two issues I have with "doctored" program material:

1. Such material may not be easily obtainable to consumers.

I observe that building nuclear reactors is not something that is easily obtainable for consumers. Therefore, I conclude that building nuclear reactors is not a profitable endeavor for consumers. I also observe that in this day and age, some consumers do pretty elaborate things, such as building functional Rail Guns. However not all consumers have the resources or interests in do such things. Whether or not consumers can do something readily is not the measure of an activity except of course that it has some influence on their probability of success. I am comfortable with the idea that some things are not easy for rank consumers to do. It appears to me that it is in the interest of the consumer to succeed at what they attempt, and to not attempt things that are beyond their means.

Short answer: I don't think that whether or not it is easy for consumers to successfully perform an activity is the sole or even a necessarily important measure of that activity. Therefore, I dismiss this issue on the grounds that it isone of the of the prices of finding out reliable information. There appears to be no way to avoid it. It was an issue before I invented ABX. It is an issue with every kind of listening test that obtains reliable evidence. So what? You just overcome it or stop pretending that you are finding reliable evidence.

2. Such material is not representative of the music consumers will play on their home stereo systems.

Again, I dismiss that as being a necessary criteria for a listening evaluation on the grounds that the very idea that components or products are going to be compared is not representative of how consumers play their home audio systems.

I believe that a test methodology should be representative of actual use conditions. Do you agree or disagree?

I invoke the Uncertainty Principle. If you try to obtain sufficiently detailed information about anything, you change your relationship with it quite a bit. If you try to obtain any information about anything you change your relationship with it at least a little. Do you want to know something about it that is not obvious, or not?

Obviously, since I am having difficulty understanding the implementation of your (1) and (2), I do not see the value in doing your (3) and (4).

That's fine. Just don't try to convince me that you are going to do Science or reliably obtain subtle information about audio products. If you want to just play - have a ball! If you want to obtain reliable, subtle information, then you have to be a little intentional about it, no? ;-)

I am surprised that you did not address my responses to your concern about my alleged "misinformation and grotesque errors". Could you take some time to speak to that?

It has become quite clear to me that powerful people wish to moderate the level of disagreement between us. I do not wish to unnecessarily raise their level of anxiety.

I happen to be significantly involved with formal recovery programs so I am familiar with denial and can often sense it reliably and clearly. It is not necessarily a debilitating problem, but one has to walk around it with soft shoes and careful steps.

arny

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Thinking further about (2) above, can you point me to any ABX tests that used *doctored* program material in the evaluation of all or any of the following?:

1. Sound stage width,
2. Sound stage height,
3. Sound stage depth,
4. Stable stereo image placement,
5. Clarity,
6. Detail,
7. Dynamics (dynamic range),
8. Tactile impact,
9. Sonic realism.

You missed the boat. In the year 2000 I built a web site named www.pcabx.com that was full of downloadable files that fit the bill. In 2008 or so I took it down because it cost me money and it had made its point with the people who mattered. I believe that it and its files can be found on one of the wayback machines. This whole business now has a independently developed conferencing web site called Hydrogen Audio. Long story short, a goodly number of people were discipled and the evangelist moved on. Google is your friend.

Regarding the "real world amounts" you mentioned. How should "real world" and exaggerated amounts of items 1-9 be quantified?

One of the better know practitioners of the art of doctoring musical program material is named Ethan Winer. I believe that he is known to you. He has a web site with worked out examples of this.

As I mentioned early, David Clark (who is also known to you and I have provided you with contact information) maintains a library of recordings that are in some sense "pre doctored" or naturally challenging. If you approach him politely you might be able to obtain some of his knowledge.

Clark has been working on his library of challenging recordings since the early-middle 1980s.

One of the best examples of this approach is work that was published in the JAES by a person well known by the initals JJ, relating to perceptual coders. I don't see where you have mentioned him, but he is easy enough to contact via Hydrogen Audio or again Google is your friend. JJ = James Johnson. That information plus the word audio gets you his contact information returned as the first item from Google.

tonyb

Seems like alot to do over nothing. We all enjoy listening to music on different levels, be it those different levels be right or wrong according to the audio world. This thread also reminds me of "If you don't like the facts/studies, change them." Isn't that how most arguements go to bring both sides to a stalemate ? Dilute each end of a discusion to lessor it's meaning ? While a carefully trained ear is usefull in the stereo evaluation process, it is not a necessity nor do most even care. Nobody wants listening to music, one of the more enjoyable,easy things to do, become one of the more complicated things in their lives.

I value the science behind it all, the studies and such, but in reality it concerns me little as nobody else can hear with my ears. Too much of high end audio has gotten to the point of telling people basically your too stupid to be able to hear what everyone else does and that turns off a good portion of your audience. Not good for an industry holding on by a string.

Incidently, isn't all audio recordings "doctored" to a degree ? Of course they are....but by an over emphasis of certain recordings in a test, you create a baseline in the heads of those who judge to be weighed against all other test material. So in essense, you start off by skewing the listener. In the end, it matters naught what this study says, that persons creditials are, who had the proper training, because I myself will be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes down to what sounds good.

CoolJazz

So the mentor brings forward his proudest accomplishment. The crusader for lowering of quality everywhere, desperate to call attention to himself! The guy that?s been laughed off audio forums worldwide as he tries to dumb down audio to the lowest resulting experience! The pied piper of mid-fi! Inventing a way to ignore results and push forward with the repeatedly flawed results, regardless of the evidence. Every claim he advanced relies on this ?superior? testing method or a simplistic view of electronics and electronic test equipment capabilities!

Some years ago, a car magazine started naming a yearly ?top automobile?. Buyers following this spotlight focus soon found themselves in some of the worse dogs produced in the auto industry! (Sorry Fido!) With the ability of hindsight, you can see clearly that the criteria used must have lead to very poor recommendations over and over! Does it matter what their deciding criteria was, or should we even care about anything but the fact that it lead to a poor result? Why would anyone have any respect, or spend any time contemplating their ongoing picks with that track record?

Same is true today in audio and the ?scientific? approach to supposed rational equipment choices. For instance, we now have a 30 year track record of constant advance in quality of digital. Yet it was perfect when born! Somehow perfect was bettered! But our pied piper is out trumpeting the ?results? of ?scientific? study that jitter makes no difference. So how is it getting so much better? The one big advance in knowledge of how to get better results in the ability to freeze dry music! Clearly audible positive results of using faster and deeper storage of frozen moments in time are denied by again bringing forward ?conclusive proof? that it can make no difference! At what point to we began to realize that everything the individual claims is extremely suspect and that many are being misled into much poorer performance?

In other triumphant ?studies?, things like Bose systems are ?proven? to be equal to vastly superior Krell electronics. How many ways and how many times must we find compelling evidence that some deeply flawed method is being used to ?prove? the null, no difference found, results? Try looking back once at all these claims and measure them with common sense! Pretty soon you have to conclude that the one and only test itself is having some kind of problem producing the correct analysis, don't you?

We?re constantly reminded that pill studies use this extremely superior methodology, yet weekly we find results in the news that somehow, even in a much more suitable field, that the evidence of results flies in the face of the carefully ?proven?. And these very carefully studied meds have turned out to be dangerously wrong and some magic white pill is again being pulled from the market. Wouldn?t this be a time to make note of the result being in error, yet again, and examine the methodology that lead to the error? Or do we repeatedly tell ourselves that ?science? told us it was a good treatment and just go ahead and force feed the pill through the clinched teeth of the ?uninformed?.

In audio it?s extremely rare, if ever, that we can find a result that this ?scientific method? has lead to what the passage of time shows to be correct results. How will a truly better listening experience ever come if we go down the road of null results? Why is this vastly ?smarter? approach the only test available to use? Why are we supposed to believe a result that runs counter to the most appropriate test equipment ever devised? The whole worlds results are supposed to just be tossed away? Just because one style of testing, relying on trickery, blinders, deception, altering, and statistical averaging to remove the results of exceptional ?aberrations? says this is best average result? And rather than listen to the greatest teacher, history, we are supposed to let ourselves get buried in an avalanche of professional debaters (kind of rhymes with something else going on doesn?t it), and lost in a forest of word games. Some, much to their credit, like Darqueknight, do take the time. But many others just quietly close the threads that go on forever and ever, and instead turn to deeply moving music enjoyed through systems that ?science? would ?prove? are a null result with a Western Auto rack system!

Even a pretty intelligent individual can be fooled at times, but history always will shine a whole different light on things to those that bother to take the time to look back at and compare.

CJ

PS?Thanks for the replies, Raife and Doctor r! It?s just a shame to have a whole organization bring discredit to itself through the association with those looking for personal attention and profit!

arny

CoolJazz wrote: »

So the mentor brings forward his proudest accomplishment.

Actually, my proudest accomplishment was raising four children who were fine people. One did not quite make it into adulthood due to an accident of nature. The other three are happily married, two have children. Two have PhDs in Cancer Research and are successfully pursuing careers in their chosen field. The other has a degree in Chemical Engineering, Enviornmental engineering and a MBA. He is the manager of a plant that makes adhesive-based products such as those used for blood sugar testing.

I only point this out because it is quite clear that your response to my challenge up to this point is 100% dismissive and 0% on-topic. If you don't want to play, please don't foul the field! Most of the remaining posts up until this point are childish insults and silly pictures which aren't worthy of even a brief reply.

arny

markmarc wrote: »

You give no quotes from the works of ****, Vanderkooy, and Clark to back up your position.

Neither did the OP.

I may have missed something, but I've searched the posted article and find no footnoted quotes from the works of ****.

What I find is the just the following:

"1. According to **** and Vanderkooy, It is better to blindfold or otherwise visually handicap music listeners. This directly conflicts with the fact that sound image localization is one of the basic principles of stereophonic reproduction. Somerville and other scientists found that hearing (sound localization and sonic depth perception) is assisted by sight. [12, p. 205]"

Which is a paraphrase. Given the generally poor quality of paraphases in the OP, I see no reason to follow this up.

Then we have the following:

"3. According to Clark, Nousaine, and other A/B/X and blind listening test proponents, sitting off axis and far outside the stereo sweet spot and/or listening in a group environment is a proper method of evaluating stereophonic sound systems. This is absurd and gives the impression that blind listening proponents are desperate to prove a point: That audiophiles are a delusional lot and that the perceived differences in audio components are largely imaginary."

This is also a paraprhase and this time there isn't even a footnote.

You respectfully need to bring facts instead of just having a personal history with these men. Only then will I and others be able to fairly judge your viewpoint.

You're asking me to do what the OP didn't actually do - you're holding me to a far higher standard than you have held him.

Furthermore, I provided a very unique contribution which you seem to want to dismiss - a first person narrative by a person who has a long personal experience with the subject individuals and who has worked with them extensively on relevant projects. This would be considered to be a valuable contribution to a scholarly work.

arny

tonyb wrote: »

Seems like alot to do over nothing.

Seems like opening responses with dismissive statements is a big thing around here - I see two in quick sucession. Your own post belies your claim - you added to the "tod"

We all enjoy listening to music on different levels, be it those different levels be right or wrong according to the audio world.

That is a very unhelpful truism, and continues the tone of dismissiveness.

This thread also reminds me of "If you don't like the facts/studies, change them."

Finally, something on-topic. My background is that I didn't like audio evaluations (facts/studies) that turn into dueling assertions based on questionable preferences. So I changed them.

Isn't that how most arguements go to bring both sides to a stalemate ?

Not at all.

Dilute each end of a discusion to lessor it's meaning ?

That seems to be your preferred methodology, but it isn't mine.

While a carefully trained ear is usefull in the stereo evaluation process, it is not a necessity nor do most even care.

Back to dismissive talk. :-(

Nobody wants listening to music, one of the more enjoyable,easy things to do, become one of the more complicated things in their lives.

Now, that I agree with. Reality is that most people want to enjoy what good audio systems do which is reproduce music in helpful ways.

For example, last night I was sitting in the living room of everybody else on this thread's whipping boy - David Clark, listening to his massive 7.2 system while watching the movie "The Dirty Dozen" on his video screen which is driven by a Sony LCOS HD projector. The picture was good but the sound was out of sight. Every other time I've watched this movie it was just a late-60s pseudo war movie, but this time I was repeatedly blown away by the sonic imagry that was encapsulated into its sound, originally 6 wide high speed magnetic tracks recorded with the best circa-60s technology then available.

That all said there were a lot of things about the the owner's system that many here would probably proudly turn their noses up at. Doesn't matter, because the sound was very, very good. Good acoustics plus good electro-acoustics always seems to work.

I value the science behind it all, the studies and such, but in reality it concerns me little as nobody else can hear with my ears.

Another unhelpful truism. While nobody can hear through your ears, many of the things you have no doubt made value judgements about relate to the limitations and characteristics that characterize everybody's hearing. In short, many many people don't buy the OP's imaginative tales of magic cables, inductors and fuses.

Too much of high end audio has gotten to the point of telling people basically your too stupid to be able to hear what everyone else does and that turns off a good portion of your audience. Not good for an industry holding on by a string.

Interesting, because the author of the OP is on the public record as being what many of us see as being an agressive purveryer of exactly that. He's basically said that we've butchered science (how close to you're too stupid is that?) to offer opinions and evidence that is contrary to his.

Incidentally, isn't all audio recordings "doctored" to a degree ? Of course they are....but by an over emphasis of certain recordings in a test, you create a baseline in the heads of those who judge to be weighed against all other test material. So in essence, you start off by skewing the listener.

Are you saying that you don't agree with my point that simply asking the listener to listen for differences among components does that first?

In the end, it matters naught what this study says, that persons creditials are, who had the proper training, because I myself will be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes down to what sounds good.

If you wish to descend into solipsism, then it begs the question of why you bother to read or post on audio forums at all, no?

markmarc

arny wrote: »

Neither did the OP.

I may have missed something, but I've searched the posted article and find no footnoted quotes from the works of ****.

What I find is the just the following:

"1. According to **** and Vanderkooy, It is better to blindfold or otherwise visually handicap music listeners. This directly conflicts with the fact that sound image localization is one of the basic principles of stereophonic reproduction. Somerville and other scientists found that hearing (sound localization and sonic depth perception) is assisted by sight. [12, p. 205]"

Which is a paraphrase. Given the generally poor quality of paraphases in the OP, I see no reason to follow this up.

Then we have the following:

"3. According to Clark, Nousaine, and other A/B/X and blind listening test proponents, sitting off axis and far outside the stereo sweet spot and/or listening in a group environment is a proper method of evaluating stereophonic sound systems. This is absurd and gives the impression that blind listening proponents are desperate to prove a point: That audiophiles are a delusional lot and that the perceived differences in audio components are largely imaginary."

This is also a paraprhase and this time there isn't even a footnote.



You're asking me to do what the OP didn't actually do - you're holding me to a far higher standard than you have held him.

Furthermore, I provided a very unique contribution which you seem to want to dismiss - a first person narrative by a person who has a long personal experience with the subject individuals and who has worked with them extensively on relevant projects. This would be considered to be a valuable contribution to a scholarly work.

First, your level of offense at my request for you to bring details came before any detailed posts by you. This shows to many that you'd rather attack than to be fair. It is obvious and appropriate that you desire to defend your colleagues on work that you assisted and or believe in. Like anybody I appreciate the wonderful sonic experience you enjoyed while watching "The Dirty Dozen".

In your initial post you disputed without quotes or paraphrases, just the most basic of "you are wrong" to Raife. I don't dispute the personal narrative, just that it was the most basic and didn't offer up much detail. Since then you have become more specific in your criticism, though it has taken several posts to do so. At the same time you protested Raife's paraphrasing but don't give the exact quote to refute. Though Raife has provided exact quotes to support his position in post #39.

As from what I have seen so far in this thread, it appears that you didn't care for being shown the limitations of A/B/X blind testing regarding stereophonic testing (not to mention what you feel are unfair paraphrasings).

DarqueKnight

Then:

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

Nonsense. A fabrication.

Again nonsense and a complete fabrication.

Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the misinformation and grotesque errors that fill the previous several posts by DarqueKnight...

Now:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I am surprised that you did not address my responses to your concern about my alleged "misinformation and grotesque errors". Could you take some time to speak to that?

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

It has become quite clear to me that powerful people wish to moderate the level of disagreement between us. I do not wish to unnecessarily raise their level of anxiety.

You came to this forum with the express purpose of smearing my name. Your false accusations were shown to be unfounded in truth. Now, you want to hide behind the curtain of "powerful people who wish to moderate the level of disagreement between us". It is interesting that you wish to adopt a "moderate" tone only after you have been unequivocally shown to be in gross error. I assume that publicly admitting error would cause you to loose stature in the eyes of your "disciples". Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to admit your error. Anyone, including Stevie Wonder, can read what you accused me of and then read the associated documents, for which page, column and paragraph numbers were cited, and see that you did not know what you were talking about.

One can reasonably ask, since you claim such intimate familiarity and friendship with the authors of the documents that I allegedly misrepresented, how was it possible that you, a purported man of science, could make such an error?

One can reasonably ask why these "powerful people" did not want to moderate you prior to coming to this forum and introducing yourself in such an extremely dishonorable manner.

One can reasonably ask, if you cannot be trusted to do the proper due diligence prior to making serious public accusations, can you be trusted in any matter? Where is the maturity, character and reason that should be displayed after living on this planet for 65.67 years?

I would like to further discuss the Clark, Lipschitz and Vanderkooy papers that you accused me of misrepresenting.

****, S. P. and Vanderkooy, J., "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 29, No. 7/8, July/August 1981, pp. 482-491.

Clark, D., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.

Clark, David, "Ten Years Of A/B/X Testing", 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, NY, October 1991.

As someone interested in high quality stereophonic reproduction, the rendering of a stable, three-dimensional sound stage with well defined images is important to me. My understanding is that the creation of this aural illusion was the motivating force behind the development of home stereo systems. I would expect that any methodology proposed for the evaluation of stereo equipment would provide procedures for measuring the sound stage proportions and quality.

The Clark papers extensively discuss distortion. Clark goes to some length in his 1982 paper to indicate that any distortion introduced by the A/B/X Comparator would be inaudible. However, I could find no discussion of stereophonic principles. Specifically, I could find no assurance that if the A/B/X comparator were inserted into the stereophonic audio chain, there would be no detrimental effects on imaging and sound stage proportions. I would expect to find such assurances in the form of spatial maps that showed no difference in the localization of sound images when listening to the same source material with the A/B/X Comparator in and out of the stereophonic audio chain. In lieu of stereophonic spatial maps, at the very least I would expect to find some discussion describing the relative locations of images within the sound stage.

Lipschitz and Vanderkooy (1981), advocated the use of A/B/X switchboxes and they briefly mentioned stereophonic principles. The following quotes are from page 485, column 1, paragraph 2 of the Lipschitz and Venderkooy (1981) paper:

"We believe that such recordings (phonograph records) are of little value in assessing stereo equipment for accuracy, and coincident-microphone recordings should be used, especially if imaging is an important criterion."

"Many subjectively important characteristics for which audio components are often assessed, such as "air", "depth", "imaging", "image stability", etc., are far more a product of the source material than of the component in question."

Lipschitz and Vanderkooy seem to understand that imaging is an important criterion in stereo equipment evaluation, yet there is no specific assurance that A/B and A/B/X switchboxes impose no detrimental effects on imaging. Similar to Clark, Lipschitz and Vanderkooy assert that the insertion of the switchbox will be inaudible:

"It may be objected that the switchbox itself may cause audible effects. This is indeed a possibility; the use of high-quality switches and relays does, however, render it unlikely."[p. 486, col. 1, par. 2]

"In our (and others') experience, a properly designed switchbox produces no audible effects on the signal."[p. 486, col. 1, par. 2]

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that a device proposed to evaluate stereo equipment would have some detailed discussion of how the device was to be used to evaluate the spatial properties of stereophonic music.

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

I invented ABX.

I understand.

However, considering your comments in post #32 of this thread, I respectfully submit that if you display this degree of irrationality and immaturity at the age of 65.67 years, how much more irrational and immature were you 35 years ago when you invented the ABX Double Blind Comparator and shortly thereafter began to market it?

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

I am mystified why you are asking such simple questions or why you have not already figured out how to properly and logically manage this situation.

I am mystified that you do not understand that in a public discussion forum, there will be observers and participants with various levels of knowledge and experience. Within the context of a public general interest audio forum, it is prudent to make ideas accessible to as many people as reasonably possible. What sense would it make for us to publicly talk in terms that only you or I understood? This isn't an esoteric audio cult.

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

Long story short, a goodly number of people were discipled and the evangelist moved on.

Evangelist? Disciples? You make it sound like you founded a religious cult. ABX is not a religious cult is it? Are you a man of science or are you a religious cult leader? The unjustified emotional outburst you displayed at your introduction to this forum seems to indicate the latter. While the terms "evangelist" and "disciple" are not exclusive to the religious domain, you have been in the world long enough to understand that those terms carry a generally religious connotation. Thoughtful scientists generally try to avoid using such terms.

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

Just don't try to convince me that you are going to do Science or reliably obtain subtle information about audio products.

Please try to understand that I am not trying to convince you of anything. Prior to you recently confronting me on the AVS forum, when I was trying to discuss another matter, I had never said anything to you or said anything about you, publicly or privately. Again, it is you who seems to have a problem with me.

I do not have any financial interest in audio. I do not work in the audio field. I am not financially, emotionally or intellectually threatened by someone adopting or abandoning a particular audio equipment evaluation methodology. I think most people have sense enough to realize that my writings simply document what has worked or not worked for me. I have never insisted that people adopt or abandon certain audio-related ideas.

My ideas and writings, which seem to keep you up as night as you were here responding to me at 4am, are only for those interested in them. People can take them or leave them as they see fit. It may shock you to know that, as passionate as I seem to be about audio, I am far more passionate about my other hobbies. This is a quote from a thread posted in January of 2010:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It may surprise some to know that audio is way down on list of my hobbies, in order of importance my leisure activities are:

1. Investing.
2. Saxophone.
3. Photography.
4. Audio
5. Video

I like hobbies 1-3 because they pay for themselves and they also pay for hobbies 4 & 5. In fact, I have a paying gig with the new photo gear on Thursday.:)

DarqueKnight

Arnold Bernard Krueger wrote: »

I happen to be significantly involved with formal recovery programs so I am familiar with denial and can often sense it reliably and clearly. It is not necessarily a debilitating problem, but one has to walk around it with soft shoes and careful steps.

I am pleased that you are being treated for your condition. In addition to therapeutic counseling, I hope that you will consider taking advantage of medicines that can assist in moderating, if not alleviating, your symptoms. You have a decades-long history of vitriolic emotional public outbursts that is legendary in audio circles. I had hoped that, as a man in his mid sixties, you would have brought such urges under control. Hopefully, your outburst here was indicative of a momentary lapse in judgement rather than an escalating pattern of mental instability.

Arnold, although I appreciate the opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding, I must remind you that the same results could have been achieved with a simple respectful request for clarification.

Bottom line: It does not matter to me how someone chooses to evaluate stereo equipment. They can train their ears and become proficient in sound localization and sound characterization or they buy ABX stwitchboxes, have a friend come over and hide equipment and secretly switch it in and out, and do ear training with distorted music, pulses, sine waves and pink noise. Whatever makes them happy is fine with me. This is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby.

arny

markmarc wrote: »

First, your level of offense at my request for you to bring details came before any detailed posts by you

Level of offence?

I simply pointed out a demand for something that was not present in the OP. It begs the quesiton, why fault a response for no formal quotes when it was previously seemingly OK for the OP to not contain any formal quotes.

This shows to many that you'd rather attack than to be fair.

I'm attacking when I simply point out a significant disparity?

It is obvious and appropriate that you desire to defend your colleagues on work that you assisted and or believe in.

No, it is my desire to simply point out questionable paraphrasing. I question it on the grounds that first and foremost, it is not consistent with their personal character, general beliefs or other significant work.

In your initial post you disputed without quotes or paraphrases, just the most basic of "you are wrong" to Raife.

IMO there's no difference between made-up non-represenative paraphrases and simply saying that someone is wrong except that a statement that someone is wrong is an honest personal opinion, while made-up nonrepresentative paraprhases have an extreme potential to make it appear that someone said what they never said.

I don't dispute the personal narrative, just that it was the most basic and didn't offer up much detail.

If you had asked for more detail and I refused to provide it, then you would obviously have a complaint.

Since then you have become more specific in your criticism, though it has taken several posts to do so.

Remember, I'm under official pressure to avoid conflict. Furthermore, I've offered up a number of relevant facts which have been mostly dismissed on the most general of grounds. IOW, the message I'm getting is that details don't mean anything to most people who post here.

At the same time you protested Raife's paraphrasing but don't give the exact quote to refute. Though Raife has provided exact quotes to support his position in post #39.

In my view of this forum, Post 39 was not made by Raife and contains no quotes. Are there two different views of this forum, one of which I am not privy to? In my view of this forum Post #39 was made by "Cooljazz" and is an attack on the AES which creates quite a few problems all by itself. I'm ignoring the obvious attempt to distract.

As from what I have seen so far in this thread, it appears that you didn't care for being shown the limitations of A/B/X blind testing regarding stereophonic testing (not to mention what you feel are unfair paraphrasings).

You obviously have the right to develop and/or hold whatever opinons you wish, no matter how mystifying they may seem to me.

BTW it appears to me that you have a reading comphension problem or think I'm an idiot because have I pointed out several times in this thread that the the pre-1986 ABX tests that Raife footnoted were not the same test paradigm that Clark later called ABX.

In an attempt to forestall the posting of more massive misapphensions, here's some things that I care about and don't care about:

I don't care that much about having the limitations of ABX being pointed out to me when this is done in a reasonable way.

I will be critical of people who claim that such-and-such is solely a limitation of ABX when for example the same problem afflicts all listening tests or most listening tests, or it affects all listening tests that involve comparisons, or it is a problem for all listening tests that involve a certain kind of audio gear. This is demonizing ABX and it has already happened several times on this thread.

I don't care whether people do ABX tests or ABC/hr tests or use any of a great number of other kinds of legitimate kinds of tests that meet the basic requirements of being level-matched, time-synched and have adequate bias controls. The fact that people keep harping on ABX as if it was the only kind of testing methodology that has certain problems or that gives them problems, when in fact any reasonable testing strategy would give them the same problems is again all about them demonizing ABX. I understand that a lof of this happens in honest ignorance because some people are poorly informed about testing methodologies and ABX is all they know. Raife doesn't get this pass because he cited that book by the well-known brewmaster. If he actually read it, he should know better.

I will continue to point out that sighted evaluations such as Raife and many others seem to want to do over and over again and publicize as somehow being indictative or representative or at least useful, when under the conditions involved, the sighted evaluation is highly prone to producing false positives, including false positives that just happen to support the opinions and/or purposes of the person doing the test. This basic problem afflicts most of audio's high end publications.

I don't have problems with people doing sighted evaluations when prior reliable tests have confirmed the ready audiblity of the actual technical difference involved. For example, no I don't do or demand DBTs when I adjust a parametric equalizer that is controlling the one octave band centered at 1 Khz from 0 dB to 6 dB. However, if the difference were 0.1 dB (which mine can do accurately and repeatably), then that is a horse of a completely different color.

DarqueKnight

arny wrote: »

Which is a paraphrase. Given the generally poor quality of paraphases in the OP, I see no reason to follow this up.

Ok then. What about the direct quotes from Clark's papers that I provided in post #38?

arny wrote: »

You're asking me to do what the OP didn't actually do - you're holding me to a far higher standard than you have held him.

As someone who was asking people to buy a device for stereo component evaluation, shouldn't you be held to a higher standard?

arny wrote: »

Furthermore, I provided a very unique contribution which you seem to want to dismiss - a first person narrative by a person who has a long personal experience with the subject individuals and who has worked with them extensively on relevant projects. This would be considered to be a valuable contribution to a scholarly work.

I appreciate and respect your contribution. I realize its value for some types of audio. My position is that I don't see its general applicability to stereophonic audio.

arny

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I am pleased that you are being treated for your condition.

Raife I not pleased that you are so agressively jumping to any number of false conclusions that are potentially detrimental to people's opinion of my character and publicizing them on a public forum. I've already seen that this is one of those things that you do unknowingly, and hope that you someday stop denying that it can be a problem for you. Thanks for demonstrating this again in such close proximity to the OP.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby.[/b]

My point exactly. While most of us can get into the nuts and bolts of audio and argue over the correct proceedure, who's full of B.S. and who's not, once you take away the enjoyment factor people turn a deaf ear.

Trying to turn audio into a scientific forum for egghead banter does nothing to further the enjoyment of music, even though some or even most has merit.

Arny, while I appreciate the comments, twisting words does nothing to further a discussion. While we all have our own pre-conceived notions about audio, different levels of experience and such, claiming the high ground often results in a dead audience unwilling to listen to a word spoken. Hence, seems like a few ears have been turned off already, including mine. Lessons learned early on by most. Good luck to you in your audio journey.

Erik Tracy

Meanwhile - over at AVS - they are having a circlejerk on this thread....classy.....

DarqueKnight

arny wrote: »

Raife I not pleased that you are so agressively jumping to any number of false conclusions that are potentially detrimental to people's opinion of my character and publicizing them on a public forum.

Arnold, have you so soon forgotten that it was you who brought up mental health issues in this thread? I just commented on what you wrote.

Regarding what people think of your character, are you insisting that what I say has more influence than how you conduct yourself?

I do not understand your complaint relative to our discussion on a public forum. Did I somehow use mind control to force you to come to this public forum and engage me? Couldn't you have sent private messages or asked for my email address and had a private discussion?

I find your complaint especially bizarre in light of the fact that it was you who came to a public forum assaulting my character.

arny

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Ok then. What about the direct quotes from Clark's papers that I provided in post #38?

What I see is that they quotes show that you falsely turned a long comment about alternative methodologies for ear training into a ludicrous generality and presented just the ludicrous generality until I pointed it out to you. It seems unlikely that you asked anybody who didn't share your negative opinions to review the paper because it is rife with easily rebutted errors.

As someone who was asking people to buy a device for stereo component evaluation, shouldn't you be held to a higher standard?

If memory serves, the ABX Comparator had already been off the market for a number of years by the 1991 publication date of this article. The ABX Comparator was offered for sale because so many people said they wanted it. It never sold in large numbers (<100), and it was never other than very marginally profitable. For example the parts cost of the RM2 relay module was over half its sales price and it was not easy to assemble.

We didn't ask people to buy ABX Compators they asked us to sell them, and we weren't the only people who made or sold them (QSC being an example of another source who AFAIK made and distributed far larger numbers of them). For the past decade, almost all ABX Comparators in use are software, almost all of which (10s of thousands) were given away for free.

Besides applying to a large number of different ABX Comparators from numerous sources, Clark's Comments about listener training also apply to a wide variety of listening test methdologies, not just ABX.

I can see where this would all be very unfamiliar and confusing to advocates of sighted evaluations who never really gave DBTs a chance.

I appreciate and respect your contribution.

Whether that is show or real remains to be seen.

I realize its value for some types of audio.

Yeah, mono over 1960s telephones. ;-)

My position is that I don't see its general applicability to stereophonic audio.

Which I have yet to see you logically explain why stereo is so different from mono, or why so many people do so well with ABX and similar listening test methodologies in stereo and multichannel. Your comments about the seemingly vanishing current and recent use of ABX seem to be poorly informed.

The publications that bear your name that are in tell public arena of audio seem to tell a far less benign story.

The following tells all that needs to be known:

(1) "The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems."

(2) "ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound."

(1) is the same as saying that perceptual coders have nothing to do with audio, since the application of blind and double-blind tests has been absolutely critical to their development, both directly and indirectly.

(2) You don't say that almost all if not all of your evidence about scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques predates the development of ABX and the other blind testing techniques that most of us are talking about.

Never heard of ABC/hr or ITU BS 1116, I take it!

LOL!

arny

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Arnold, have you so soon forgotten that it was you who brought up mental health issues in this thread? I just commented on what you wrote.

Really? Looks like another one of your paraphrases. Before you apply what I said to the above claim, first find the malady I mentioned in DSM IV. I never talked about mental health issues.

Regarding what people think of your character, are you insisting that what I say has more influence than how you conduct yourself?

I guess you need to explain that because you've lost me.

I do not understand your complaint relative to our discussion on a public forum. Did I somehow use mind control to force you to come to this public forum and engage me? Couldn't you have sent private messages or asked for my email address and had a private discussion?

I find your complaint especially bizarre in light of the fact that it was you who came to a public forum assaulting my character.

I think the following belies your statements above:

"ABX and blind testing proponents say that they want to apply a scientifically rigorous testing methodology to stereophonic audio in order to determine if the claimed differences in audio components actually exist. However, they ignore decades of scientifically and mathematically rigorous subjective listening techniques that were developed by the inventor and subsequent researchers in the field of stereophonic sound."

What I am currently beginning to understand is that you actually believe this:

"The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems."

Raife I suspect that if you succeed in getting yourself up to speed in modern audio, you'll be ROTFL at what you said above, probably within just a few weeks or even a few days!

You seem to completely underestimate the role that blind testing has had on the most important developments in audio and AV media over say, the past 20-ish years.

Furthermore, it is possible to show that $ millions have been lost and promising careers have been adversely changed when people failed to make business decisions in audio based on the results of DBTs.