🚀 go-pugleaf

Clyde Slick wrote:
> 
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:rvadnZznXqTJm0jfRVn-pg@comcast.com...

> > I know exactly how ABX was designed because I was there when
> > it was designed almost 30 years ago. ABX was designed to be
> > as sensitive as possible to audible differences.

> >> It is NOT a neutral test.

> > ABX is as neutral of a test for consciiously-perceived
> > differences as is known to exist.

> It's not neutral towards those
> who preconcieve that there will be no difference

It certainly is neutral towards those who expect to hear
differences, however. If it is so inadequate it would be
easy for guys like you to hear differences when
participating. You cannot, however. You then look for an
excuse and blame those who cannot hear differences and are
satisfied with those results as having preconceptions that
plug their ears.
 
> >> It does not remove  the expectation effects of those who
> >> have preconceived notions that there are no differences.

> > ABX tests and other DBTs can be used to determine when a
> > listener is biased against hearing differences. You simply
> > present candidate listeners with audible differences that
> > other listeners have been able to hear in DBTs without much
> > difficulty. If the listener develops random results when
> > listening to differences that are known to be readily
> > audible in DBTs or by other means, then it is proof or at
> > least a strong indication that he is biased against hearing
> > differences.
 
> That has nothing to do with the preconceptions
> about any differences or preferences betweeen the two test items.
> Your pretest does not address that issue, its
> irrelevant.

It hits the nail on the head when true believers in
amp-sound differences participate and cannot hear
differences.
 
Howard Ferstler