Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
Hell in Torment Everlasting!

On May 4, 4:17 am, "VelociChicken" <b...@yahoob . com > wrote:
> "Robert Adams" <robert.ad...@analog . com > wrote in message
>
> news:449e00a8-131c-4f7f-8373-4376ac671f55@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I accidentally discovered something interesting, and thought I would
> > share it here.
>
> > Prepare a sound file with the following sequence of events.
>
> > 1) Pink noise, 10 seconds
>
> > 2) Filtered Pink noise with several notches in the frequency response
> > (moderate Q's, frequencies in the 200Hz to 5KHz range), 10 seconds
>
> > 3) Pink noise (no filtering), 10 seconds
>
> > You would think that 1) and 3) would sound the same. But what happens
> > is that your brain adjusts to the notched response in 2), and when you
> > play 3), you hear pronounced (and very annoying) peaks where the
> > notches used to be.
>
> > This is not one of those "subtle" effects that only audiophiles can
> > hear; it's such an extreme effect that you are tempted to think the
> > experiment is rigged somehow.
>
> > If you insert a period of silence between 2 and 3, your brain will
> > eventually reset itself, but it takes more time than you might think.
>
> > One thing I would like to try is to insert "reset events" between 2
> > and 3, other than silence, and see if the "reset period" can be
> > shortened.
>
> > To be honest, I had always thought that people who objected to double-
> > blind ABX testing were a bit wacky. But now that I understand a bit
> > more about this memory effect, I must admit that I can see where it
> > might be difficult to accurately compare two different audio signals.
> > I also wonder how important frequency response really is, given that
> > your brain seems to just adapt to the average spectrum anyway.
>
> > I know this has appeared in the literature before, but I found it
> > quite surprising, and it's a very easy experiment to set up yourself.
>
> > Bob Adams
>
> Is this a physical cortical effect or is it the brain doing this sound
> persistence? hmmm
>
> I've been watching a development on this Japanese site, and it shows this
> 'illusion' for visual stimuli too.
> See here: * w w w .psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/chcolore.html
> & * w w w .ritsumei.ac.jp/kic/~akitaoka/warp-e.html
> Somewhere on there, I can't find right now gives a very good example of
> how
> size, and more vividly, colour can be affected by surrounding colours and
> shapes.
>
> And we all know we have a persistence of vision, from those 'stare at a
> picture, then look at a blank wall' games - but I guess some people would
> find it quite scary that their ears can be fooled too! : )
>
> VC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

crossposted interesting thread to
rec.audio.pro

Mark

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
> Hell in Torment Everlasting!

Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
In fact one should listen A - X then B - X repeat as many times a you
think is required to decide....if you can.

However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
factor and not an equipment factor.

ScottW

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!



Terrierdork hears the aBxism jingle and roars into action.

>> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
>> Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> Except no one ever said YAP YAP you have to YAPPITY YAP YAP listen
> to A then B YAP YAPPITY YAPPITY YAP YAP YAP then X.
> In fact YAPYAPYAPYAPPITY BARK BARK BARK one should listen BARK YAP BARKBARKBARK
> A - X then YAP BARKBARKBARK YAPPITY YAP YAPYAPYAP B - X repeat YAPYAPYAP as
> many times YAP BARK ROWF BARKBARKBARK a you
>think BARKBARKBARK YAP YAP YAP is required to BARK ROWF GROWL BARK YAPYAP decide....if you can.

Scottie, you're more of a schnauzer or an illegal chihuahua than a
terrier. You should see about having your breed papers amended.

(Note for anybody who is unfamiliar with the nebula of ignorance that
duh-Scottie inhabits: Witless has never EVER participated in any aBxism
rituals. Not ever, not once. In fact, he has never even been in the same
room with an aBxism device. He has no idea what it's like to strap on
the horrid little gizmo. Scottie is, in a word, barking out his ample
ass.)

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 11:49 am, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net >
wrote:
> Terrierdork hears the aBxism jingle and roars into action.
>
> >> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn i=
n
> >> Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> >  Except no one ever said YAP YAP you have to YAPPITY YAP YAP listen
> > to A then B YAP YAPPITY YAPPITY YAP YAP YAP then X.
> > In fact YAPYAPYAPYAPPITY BARK BARK BARK one should listen BARK YAP BARKB=
ARKBARK
> > A - X then YAP BARKBARKBARK YAPPITY YAP YAPYAPYAP B - X  repeat YAPYAP=
YAP as
> > many times YAP BARK ROWF BARKBARKBARK a you
> >think BARKBARKBARK YAP YAP YAP is required to BARK ROWF GROWL BARK YAPYAP=
decide....if you can.
>
> Scottie, you're more of a schnauzer or an illegal chihuahua than a
> terrier. You should see about having your breed papers amended.
>
> (Note for anybody who is unfamiliar with the nebula of ignorance that
> duh-Scottie inhabits: Witless has never EVER participated in any aBxism
> rituals. Not ever, not once. In fact, he has never even been in the same
> room with an aBxism device. He has no idea what it's like to strap on
> the horrid little gizmo. Scottie is, in a word, barking out his ample
> ass.)

So George, how do you know it's so horrid?
and why do you dedicate yourself in classic intertard style to just
raising the noise level to intolerable levels?

You remain the most useless POS I've seen on any internet forum.
I suspect that makes you proud in your sick twisted mind.

ScottW

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!



Witlessmongrel won't give up his El Stupido Of The Year award without a
struggle.

>> Terrierdork hears the aBxism jingle and roars into action.
>>
>> >> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
>> >> Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>>
>> >  Except no one ever said YAP YAP you have to YAPPITY YAP YAP listen
>> > to A then B YAP YAPPITY YAPPITY YAP YAP YAP then X.
>> > In fact YAPYAPYAPYAPPITY BARK BARK BARK one should listen BARK YAP BARKBARKBARK
>> > A - X then YAP BARKBARKBARK YAPPITY YAP YAPYAPYAP B - X  repeat YAPYAPYAP as
>> > many times YAP BARK ROWF BARKBARKBARK a you
>> >think BARKBARKBARK YAP YAP YAP is required to BARK ROWF GROWL BARK YAPYAP decide....if you can.
>>
>> Scottie, you're more of a schnauzer or an illegal chihuahua than a
>> terrier. You should see about having your breed papers amended.
>>
>> (Note for anybody who is unfamiliar with the nebula of ignorance that
>> duh-Scottie inhabits: Witless has never EVER participated in any aBxism
>> rituals. Not ever, not once. In fact, he has never even been in the same
>> room with an aBxism device. He has no idea what it's like to strap on
>> the horrid little gizmo. Scottie is, in a word, barking out his ample
>> ass.)
>
> So George, how do you know it's so horrid?

You're a dumb one, aintcha? Let's make a list for poor dumb Scottie
Witlessmongrel.

1. aBxism is a sick and twisted religion whose only objective is to suck
the enjoyment out of playing back recorded music.

2. Who (or what) is aBxism's most intransigent apologist? That would be
Arnii Kroofeces. Enough said.

3. Normals don't need stupid torture rituals to tell them what they
already know.

4. Did I mention the Krooborg?

5. The horrid little machine has an unenviable track record: Everybody
who has ever undergone the blinding rituals reports "no difference". But
the differences are real and perceptible under Normal conditions. That
throw into question the transparency of the aBxism tumor. And yet,
despite thousands of demands for evidence that the device does what it's
purported to do, no evidence has ever been produced by the Hive.

6. It's the Krooborg, dummy.

7. You're an idiot.

8. If a Normal person's opinion of some hardware is that it doesn't
perform well enough, or costs too much, or is in some way unappealing,
the Normal simply doesn't buy it. Only a subhuman nimrod would spend
hundreds of dollars and invest hundreds of hours to find out what he
already knows.

9. It's both you *AND* the Krooborg.

10. Why do you ask? You've never used one, never seen one, never touched
one, never been within a mile of one. Why do you claim there's some
value in this nonsense when it's not worth even your time and money?

> and why do you dedicate yourself in classic intertard style

BZZZZT! I know you didn't license that term from Marc. If you had, you'd
have received the User Manual, which explains what it means and how to
use it.

>You remain the most useless POS

<blush>

Good doggie! Now go get your dip before the fleas turn you into a dead
carpet.

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net >
wrote:
> Witlessmongrel won't give up his El Stupido Of The Year award without a
> struggle.
>
> >> Terrierdork hears the aBxism jingle and roars into action.
>
> >> >> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Bur=
n in
> >> >> Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> >> >  Except no one ever said YAP YAP you have to YAPPITY YAP YAP listen=

> >> > to A then B YAP YAPPITY YAPPITY YAP YAP YAP then X.
> >> > In fact YAPYAPYAPYAPPITY BARK BARK BARK one should listen BARK YAP BA=
RKBARKBARK
> >> > A - X then YAP BARKBARKBARK YAPPITY YAP YAPYAPYAP B - X  repeat YAP=
YAPYAP as
> >> > many times YAP BARK ROWF BARKBARKBARK a you
> >> >think BARKBARKBARK YAP YAP YAP is required to BARK ROWF GROWL BARK YAP=
YAP decide....if you can.
>
> >> Scottie, you're more of a schnauzer or an illegal chihuahua than a
> >> terrier. You should see about having your breed papers amended.
>
> >> (Note for anybody who is unfamiliar with the nebula of ignorance that
> >> duh-Scottie inhabits: Witless has never EVER participated in any aBxism=

> >> rituals. Not ever, not once. In fact, he has never even been in the sam=
e
> >> room with an aBxism device. He has no idea what it's like to strap on
> >> the horrid little gizmo. Scottie is, in a word, barking out his ample
> >> ass.)
>
> > So George, how do you know it's so horrid?
>
> You're a dumb one, aintcha?

Stupidest thing I've ever done is waste more than a nanosecond on you.
I'll try to remember that.

ScottW

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 2:45 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 4, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net >
> wrote:

> > > So George, how do you know it's so horrid?
>
> > You're a dumb one, aintcha?
>
> Stupidest thing I've ever done is waste more than a nanosecond on you.
> I'll try to remember that.

Don't you just hate it when George is right?

What were the results of the last blind audio test you participated
in?

lOl!

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 12:51 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 4, 2:45 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net >
> > wrote:
> > > > So George, how do you know it's so horrid?
>
> > > You're a dumb one, aintcha?
>
> > Stupidest thing I've ever done is waste more than a nanosecond on you.
> > I'll try to remember that.
>
> Don't you just hate it when George is right?
>
> What were the results of the last blind audio test you participated
> in?

What was the last advertiser paid audio review you put any faith in?

You've never ran for congress yet I suspect you vote.
Your argument is without merit.

ScottW

Scottie's experiments with "stupidity"



The Idiot wastes a whole bunch more nanoseconds on "discussion".

>> > > > So George, how do you know it's so horrid?
>>
>> > > You're a dumb one, aintcha?
>>
>> > Stupidest thing I've ever done is waste more than a nanosecond on you.
>> > I'll try to remember that.
>>
>> Don't you just hate it when George is right?
>>
>> What were the results of the last blind audio test you participated
>> in?
>
> What was the last advertiser paid audio review you put any faith in?

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but the Usenet Idiots' Club has
disavowed the use of nonsequiturs until summer. The list of approved
idiocies for Usenet "discussions" during spring '08 is limited to
IKYABWIHs, random abuse of punctuation rules (you scored nicely on that
one), and whining impotently about the rise of Ipods and the MP3 format.

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!


"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:fcecf7b2-33cf-4de7-b04d-3ce278c792a9@u36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
> Hell in Torment Everlasting!

Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
In fact one should listen A - X then B - X repeat as many times a you
think is required to decide....if you can.

However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
factor and not an equipment factor.

ScottW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You made two points.

1. The problem which Robert Adams discovered is that the trials are not
independent. This throws all statistics out the window. There is no way to
deal with trials correlated in an unmodeled fashion. I have long been
concerned with the apparent contradiction of ABX findings with widely shared
human experience. The ABXers have repeatedly claimed that they live in a
brick(shit) house, while doubters live in a straw house. Adams's observation
makes things much more balanced.

The argument is dominated by reactionaries. Although I now think that the
ABXers are probably provably wrong, that doesn't mean that the observations
of the boutique subjectivists are right. Crazy yells louder than sane on
both sides.

2. Yes, break-in is largely a human factor.

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 12:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:fcecf7b2-33cf-4de7-b04d-3ce278c792a9@u36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
> > I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in=

> > Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
>   Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
> In fact one should listen A - X then B - X  repeat as many times a you
> think is required to decide....if you can.
>
> However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
> factor and not an equipment factor.
>
> ScottW
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------
> You made two points.
>
> 1. The problem which Robert Adams discovered is that the trials are not
> independent. This throws all statistics out the window.

No it doesn't. Just deal with it. Do an A-X comparison. Then do a B
listen to wipe A before a B-X, then an A listen to clear B before
repeating A-X.

Of course you could just buy a boom box and wait for sufficient
acclimation to it to be happy.

> There is no way to
> deal with trials correlated in an unmodeled fashion. I have long been
> concerned with the apparent contradiction of ABX findings with widely shar=
ed
> human experience.

Except the reason you reject ABX exists even greater in subjective
human experience as well as the bias the tests try to avoid.

> The ABXers have repeatedly claimed that they live in a
> brick(shit) house, while doubters live in a straw house.

Subjective BS comment that prevents dialogue.

> Adams's observation
> makes things much more balanced.
>
> The argument is dominated by reactionaries. Although I now think that the
> ABXers are probably provably wrong, that doesn't mean that the observation=
s
> of the boutique subjectivists are right. Crazy yells louder than sane on
> both sides.

Exactly. My beef with reviewers is simple. Their bias extends well
beyond sighted influence to advertising dollar influence. The BS
gets exponentially thicker and deeper when the corruption of money is
involved.
>
> 2. Yes, break-in is largely a human factor.

I did have a break-in experience with my Orions. After initially
setting the ASP and running for few hours, upon retest I found a
slight shift in one channel. Actually brought the tweeter pot setting
to be closer to other channel after "breakin". I also see a very
slight gain change on the amp as it heats up but it is quite
consistent.

ScottW

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On 4 Mai, 15:56, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>

>
> No it doesn't.  Just deal with it.  Do an A-X comparison.  Then do a=
B
> listen to wipe A before a B-X, then an A listen to clear B before
> repeating A-X.
>

LOL!!!!
Help is on the way!
The purveyors of the former ABX box are now working on their new
invention, an audio mind eraser!!!


>
>  Exactly.   My beef with reviewers is simple.  Their bias extends we=
ll
> beyond sighted influence to advertising dollar influence.   The BS
> gets exponentially thicker and deeper when the corruption of money is
> involved.
>

Read my lips!
ABX does NOTHING to elimate the opposite bias,
that things will sound the same.



> > 2. Yes, break-in is largely a human factor.
>
> I did have a break-in experience with my Orions.  After initially
> setting the ASP and running for few hours, upon retest I found a
> slight shift in one channel. Actually brought the tweeter pot setting
> to be closer to other channel after "breakin".  I also see a very
> slight gain change on the amp as it heats up but it is quite
> consistent.
>


Having 'invested' so much time in them,
you are obviously 'biased' towards them.

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!


"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:d2e1879a-f457-4e31-9159-877006388552@q1g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
On May 4, 12:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:fcecf7b2-33cf-4de7-b04d-3ce278c792a9@u36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
> > I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn in
> > Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
> In fact one should listen A - X then B - X repeat as many times a you
> think is required to decide....if you can.
>
> However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
> factor and not an equipment factor.
>
> ScottW
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------
> You made two points.
>
> 1. The problem which Robert Adams discovered is that the trials are not
> independent. This throws all statistics out the window.

No it doesn't. Just deal with it. Do an A-X comparison. Then do a B
listen to wipe A before a B-X, then an A listen to clear B before
repeating A-X.

[snip]

Fine for personal use. I have no objection. I would use it, if it were
available. On the other hand, the ABXers are very statistics conscious,
citing "statistically meaningful" thresholds of probability, etc. Adams's
observation punches a big hole in that. It makes the results mathematically
incorrect. The thresholds are skewed in unknown ways. One can't be a partial
mathematical purist. When doing statistical research, you either do it
right, or you're just a fuckup. There is a difference between "personally
meaningful" and "publishable." In the latter, one takes responsibility for
the welfare of others.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!

On May 4, 1:12 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:d2e1879a-f457-4e31-9159-877006388552@q1g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 4, 12:00 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "ScottW" <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote in message
>
> >news:fcecf7b2-33cf-4de7-b04d-3ce278c792a9@u36g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...=

> > On May 4, 7:53 am, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere . com > wrote:
>
> > > I picked this up on rec.audio.pro. Thank Heavens the ABXers will Burn =
in
> > > Hell in Torment Everlasting!
>
> > Except no one ever said you have to listen to A then B then X.
> > In fact one should listen A - X then B - X repeat as many times a you
> > think is required to decide....if you can.
>
> > However your reference does indicate how break-in is largely a human
> > factor and not an equipment factor.
>
> > ScottW
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------
> > You made two points.
>
> > 1. The problem which Robert Adams discovered is that the trials are not
> > independent. This throws all statistics out the window.
>
> No it doesn't.  Just deal with it.  Do an A-X comparison.  Then do a=
B
> listen to wipe A before a B-X, then an A listen to clear B before
> repeating A-X.
>
> [snip]
>
> Fine for personal use. I have no objection. I would use it, if it were
> available. On the other hand, the ABXers are very statistics conscious,
> citing "statistically meaningful" thresholds of probability, etc. Adams's
> observation punches a big hole in that.

No it doesn't. It raises an issue to be dealt with. Others have
claimed, unjustifiably,
that ABX ignores the need for long listening sessions. Adams also
seems to punch a hole in that.

> It makes the results mathematically
> incorrect. The thresholds are skewed in unknown ways.

With humans as the measurement device, the results are always skewed
in unknown ways. Drunk vs sober. Just off the motorcycle and deaf,
tired vs rested, acclimated to a sound vs the virgin ear. There are
infinite influences on human perception. Besides, after hearing B,
the memory and acclimation of B won't make X sound less like A except
in memory. Go back and refresh. I don't care if you've acclimated to
B, X and A won't sound different in a quick switch of A and B.
BTW, I've got 4 pairs of speakers in my listening room.
No two pair of supposedly identical speakers sound alike with pink
noise.
Yet with music...you'd never know.

> One can't be a partial
> mathematical purist. When doing statistical research, you either do it
> right, or you're just a fuckup.

Bob, if you insist there is nothing between perfection and a
fuckup...we'll we know where you are.

> There is a difference between "personally
> meaningful" and "publishable." In the latter, one takes responsibility for=

> the welfare of others.

I guess that's why you've never been published.

ScottW

Re: Death to ABXers! Read Testament Here!


"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:422cfc7f-a7d4-48e2-8827-ebd4ee52f482@k1g2000prb.googlegroups . com ...
[snip]

Bob, if you insist there is nothing between perfection and a
fuckup...we'll we know where you are.

> There is a difference between "personally
> meaningful" and "publishable." In the latter, one takes responsibility for
> the welfare of others.

I guess that's why you've never been published.

ScottW

Aw w w , Scott, come on. I've been really enjoying this discussion. Why did you
have to go adhominem?

I'm not going there. I'm just a little sad.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511