🚀 go-pugleaf

Harry Lavo wrote:
> 
> "Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42DC1FB4.FFAF6126@attglobal.net...
> 
> <snip<
> 
> > How could this be? With the ABX protocol the participant, be
> > he blessed with my point of view or with yours, can compare
> > A and B openly, knowing exactly which is which. With the
> > switch to X he can then decide if X sounds like A or B, both
> > of which, as I noted can be known by the participant. The
> > ABX test is both a blind and sighted test at the same time.
> >
> > This participant can indeed be like me and be generally
> > predisposed to believe that differences will not be audible.
> > That may make you feel smug, but how do you explain the
> > failure of those who think they CAN hear differences prior
> > to taking the test not being able to hear those differences
> > blind? They had expectation effects that were just the
> > opposite of those you claim prejudice the tests in favor of
> > differences not being audible.

> It's very simple, Howard.  

I agree, which is why I find it odd that you people have so
much trouble understanding the issue.

> The test gets in the way of how the ear/brain
> combine normally listens to music.  It uses the left brain "comparative" as
> opposed to the right brain (and primitive brain's) basically sensate
> response to music...and it is this part of the brain that would have to
> respond differently if it is to detect a difference in reproducing music.
> Moreover, it can only do this in context, which quick-switch, comparative
> switching tends to destroy.

Nothing is stopping you from switching at greater intervals.
In any case, your apologetics are a copout. You desperately
want to have those differences exist in order for the hobby
to mean something to you, and so you come up with every
excuse you can to mythologize listening evaluations.

> So we have a test that those who don't think there are difference doen't
> really think too hard about, because it gives them the answer they want.
> And a test that makes it difficult to hear much in the way of differences
> reproducing music EXCEPT for those that are loudness based (and even then it
> is not as sensitive as white noise).

Get a life. The test puts your kind in your place and the
best you can do is squirm and scratch for idiotic excuses.
 
> So it is not only useless but misleading as a test for evaluating audio
> equipment.

Only for those for whom an audio system is an end in itself
and a means for those who need bragging points to gain a
degree of misdirected self esteem.

Howard Ferstler