🚀 go-pugleaf

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42d4ff39$1_1@spool9-east.superfeed.net
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in
message
> news:97c9d1hmhthem3b89f02jiphm8ahgj4mqm@4ax.com...

>> Bullshit. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your
>> absolute knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear
*must*
>> sound better than 'Chinky cheapies'.

> It doesn't support it because it is inherently designed
> to purposefully support the opposite conclusion.

This is the usual audiophilia-dupe answer, which is what we
should expect from an audiophilia-dupe like Art.

Please note that Art has so much confidence in his baseless
accusations that he doesn't even post under his true name.
Art is obviously afraid of his senseless natterings on
Usenet being associated with his true identity.

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 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.

The PCABX web site uses a "Listener Training Test" to filter
out listners and listening environments that are biased
against hearing differences. This facility is freely
available at http://www.pcabx.com/training/index.htm .