John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 504

scott wurcer · 22nd July 2010, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bear

Jan & all others - let's take the ABX debate off line...

tnx.

_-_-bear

That is good, ABX becomes a straw man. No one ever said a DBT = ABX.

john curl · 22nd July 2010, 03:42 AM

It is normally implied as the primary test for audio listening testing.

SY · 22nd July 2010, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john curl

It is normally implied as the primary test for audio listening testing.

Not by anyone who has even cursory knowledge of sensory testing.

Quote:

I do not look at nameplates. I just keep track of the components under test. I don't have to be told 'which is which'. I just need to know that this is L and this is M for example, or D and H. This nameplate thing is a 'slander' to compromise my experience, in making intelligent and correct audio decisions.

Wow, you can't even keep your story straight for two sentences in a row.

john curl · 22nd July 2010, 04:00 AM

Sorry, what does Dr. Lipshitz and his associates do, anyway? They don't use ABX boxes anymore? News to me.

SY · 22nd July 2010, 04:06 AM

Many things seem to be news to you, despite having been presented time and time again.

Maybe you need larger print.

ABX is only one format of controlled sensory testing.

There. Did you see it this time?

john curl · 22nd July 2010, 04:07 AM

Sorry, SY, let me make it clear for everyone. Nameplates do NOT impress me, but listening differences between two components does. To me, a 'nameplate' could bias the gullible. I agree to that, but keeping track of different sounding equipment still needs some sort of ID. For example, in 1978 I visited HK in Japan and was given a blind test of three circuits that I did not design or build. The evaluation equipment was good, I was very impressed with the engineers and the facility, and I gave my subjective impression of each circuit as it was presented, and compared them in ranking. They were very impressed. To me, it was just a day's work.

john curl · 22nd July 2010, 04:42 AM

The same year, 1978, I tried the Spiegel ABX box in my own apartment and I could not tell the difference reliably, between a Levinson JC-2 line amp and a Dyna PAS-3X. That is when I realized that 'something' was wrong, and I wrote it up in a LTE correspondence between Dr. Lipshitz and others in 'The Audio Amateur' in 1979.
Perhaps those serious about this sort of testing should also read the 'other side' or the criticisms of ABX, etc. testing. They are still valid to me.

Steve Eddy · 22nd July 2010, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john curl

For example, in 1978 I visited HK in Japan and was given a blind test of three circuits that I did not design or build. The evaluation equipment was good, I was very impressed with the engineers and the facility, and I gave my subjective impression of each circuit as it was presented, and compared them in ranking. They were very impressed. To me, it was just a day's work.

What exactly was the "test"?

Sounds like you were simply presented with three options and asked to rank them. If so, I don't see that that's any sort of test.

Now, if they had presented them to you as A, B, and C, asked you to rank them, then randomly changed their designations, asked you to rank them again, and then did this a dozen times and compared the results, that would have been a test.

But as you describe it here, it doesn't seem to be any sort of test at all.

se

john curl · 22nd July 2010, 05:39 AM

Well, HK was impressed. You see, they made up the test. Their expert listeners had already 'ranked' them and I got the same ranking between the 3 designs.
In truth, I find that I can hear differences in audio equipment. That has kept me trying to design better and better audio equipment over more than 4 decades.
I also find that I can be fooled by ABX tests. Why, may be argued, but it is a fact, at least for me. That is why I don't participate in ABX or similar blind testing.
It is important for me to assess subtle differences in audio components, if possible. If I don't, I can't make better products, and I will be out of a job. Therefore, I use what works for me, as it has for decades. I just listen, and sometimes compare.
I usually listen with pretty good equipment, and really good source material.
If others here are happy with blind or controlled testing to show them what they can hear, so be it.

Steve Eddy · 22nd July 2010, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john curl

Well, HK was impressed. You see, they made up the test. Their expert listeners had already 'ranked' them and I got the same ranking between the 3 designs.

The odds of that happening would be a mere 1 in 6 even if you hadn't bothered to listen to anything. Don't know that I'd call that terribly impressive.

Quote:

In truth, I find that I can hear differences in audio equipment.

But you haven't been able to actually demonstrate that "truth."

se

22nd July 2010, 04:06 AM	#5035
SY diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Chicagoland Blog Entries: 1	Many things seem to be news to you, despite having been presented time and time again. Maybe you need larger print. ABX is only one format of controlled sensory testing. There. Did you see it this time? __________________ If there's a sucker born every minute, where do the rest of them come from?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

22nd July 2010, 03:42 AM	#5032
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	It is normally implied as the primary test for audio listening testing.

22nd July 2010, 04:00 AM	#5034
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	Sorry, what does Dr. Lipshitz and his associates do, anyway? They don't use ABX boxes anymore? News to me.

22nd July 2010, 04:07 AM	#5036
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	Sorry, SY, let me make it clear for everyone. Nameplates do NOT impress me, but listening differences between two components does. To me, a 'nameplate' could bias the gullible. I agree to that, but keeping track of different sounding equipment still needs some sort of ID. For example, in 1978 I visited HK in Japan and was given a blind test of three circuits that I did not design or build. The evaluation equipment was good, I was very impressed with the engineers and the facility, and I gave my subjective impression of each circuit as it was presented, and compared them in ranking. They were very impressed. To me, it was just a day's work.

22nd July 2010, 04:42 AM	#5037
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	The same year, 1978, I tried the Spiegel ABX box in my own apartment and I could not tell the difference reliably, between a Levinson JC-2 line amp and a Dyna PAS-3X. That is when I realized that 'something' was wrong, and I wrote it up in a LTE correspondence between Dr. Lipshitz and others in 'The Audio Amateur' in 1979. Perhaps those serious about this sort of testing should also read the 'other side' or the criticisms of ABX, etc. testing. They are still valid to me.

22nd July 2010, 05:39 AM	#5039
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	Well, HK was impressed. You see, they made up the test. Their expert listeners had already 'ranked' them and I got the same ranking between the 3 designs. In truth, I find that I can hear differences in audio equipment. That has kept me trying to design better and better audio equipment over more than 4 decades. I also find that I can be fooled by ABX tests. Why, may be argued, but it is a fact, at least for me. That is why I don't participate in ABX or similar blind testing. It is important for me to assess subtle differences in audio components, if possible. If I don't, I can't make better products, and I will be out of a job. Therefore, I use what works for me, as it has for decades. I just listen, and sometimes compare. I usually listen with pretty good equipment, and really good source material. If others here are happy with blind or controlled testing to show them what they can hear, so be it.