Is ABX finally Obsolete

Gregadd · Jul 20, 2011

I ran across this on PFO.

Hardly a definitive study, but she gets my vote.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm

terryj · Jul 20, 2011

am I allowed to say 'what a load of...cobblers'?

Whatmore · Jul 20, 2011

Her argument is interesting but pretty light on.
I'd like to see some evidence that backs up her claim about humans not being able to differentiate between three sounds.

audioguy · Jul 20, 2011

I love this quote and said with absolute authority and with ZERO evidence that it is accurate:

For example SACD would have replaced CD by now if not for ABX tests and pseudo-scientific studies in AES papers.

While parts of what she says may (or may not) be true, she has zero credibility.

Vincent Kars · Jul 20, 2011

The problem with articles like this is that the author is not able to discriminate between experimental design and experimental setup.
E.g. if our echoic memory is needed to remember small details correctly and it can contain an exact representation of the sound for about 4 to 6 seconds than any ABX lasting longer than this time span is doomed to fail. Not because of the method but because our experimental setup doesn’t take in to account the limitations of our short time memory.
You can’t blame the method for being applied wrongly.

This is discussed in more detail here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?3636-ABX-testing

FrantzM · Jul 20, 2011

I find this very generous, even suspect to call this a"study" ... Let's not offend anyone intelligence by using "defintive" even with modifier to describe it...

microstrip · Jul 20, 2011

I am not an expert in bio, perceptual or physiological areas, and my views on ABX or DBT are always overcast from the physics use of statistics.

It seems me that ABX is essentially a tool for development and does not pretend to be what some people expect - a scientific oracle that establishes the universal threshold of audibility tweaks. It was developed by industry because they needed a fast and economic test with a certain degree of confidence, but I am sure they must use other ways to complement this test - no one would risk millions on a 95% confidence test.

Let us suppose that a golden ear audiophile or cable developer can get a 25/25 score ABX test on cables. Will it universally prove that cables can make a difference?

(Now just for fun: but please do not tell me I am not being serious ...)

Or should we have an individual ABX examination before being able to buy expensive equipment? Should we have an "audiophile" certificate before being allowed to enter an hifi shop? If we get 18/25 you are allowed to buy amplifiers of more than 1000 usd, 20/25 or better is needed to go over the usd 10000 threshold, and only those with more than 23/25 can get the Lamm ML3 ...

FrantzM · Jul 20, 2011

Microstrip
We can suppose a lot of things and in the realm of statistics strange things can happen. Well .. 25/25 on an ABX on cable could well happen The odds are not in its favor and I will suggest to anyone to not hold their breath waiting for it to happen ...
I find it somewhat odd that it seems to come back to "expensive equipment" as if their price tags equates with absolute, incontrovertible superiority. No need to answer if such is your belief please enjoy ever more expensive equipment their cost is proof and justification enough for you.

The little of the thread was good attempt to stir the pot .. The article content unfortunately is to repeat myself ..lame.

Gregadd · Jul 20, 2011

The short comings of ABX are well documented after almost forty years. Perhaps we can list them in an attempt to design a better test.

That would be great if we would come up with the WBF Blind listening test, complete with statistcal calculator. Use would be voluntary and there would no such thing as pass or fail.
That is I would compare section A to selection A rather than selection A to selection B. That would deal witht he issue of memeory.
Remeber I said is ABX obsolete not DBT.

naturephoto1 · Jul 20, 2011

A lot of what she says is also mentioned and/or alluded to in the editorial by Robert Hartley that she has a link to at the end of the "article".

Rich

RogerD · Jul 20, 2011

"In our world of music enjoyment there are subjectivists "music listeners" and objectivists "audio scientists" who try to measure phenomenon. Music listeners believe what they hear with their ears. Audio scientists do not believe what they hear unless they can quantify and measure it. If they cannot measure it, it does not exist and they convince themselves they are not hearing what they hear! My quest is to show the wisdom of enjoying the sound of music and accepting what one hears, even if it cannot be scientifically proven."------- Teresa Goodwin

+1

microstrip · Jul 20, 2011

FrantzM said:
Microstrip
We can suppose a lot of things and in the realm of statistics strange things can happen. Well .. 25/25 on an ABX on cable could well happen The odds are not in its favor and I will suggest to anyone to not hold their breath waiting for it to happen ...
I find it somewhat odd that it seems to come back to "expensive equipment" as if their price tags equates with absolute, incontrovertible superiority. No need to answer if such is your belief please enjoy ever more expensive equipment their cost is proof and justification enough for you.

The little of the thread was good attempt to stir the pot .. The article content unfortunately is to repeat myself ..lame.

FrantzM,

No need to make it personal. I always look at audio as something that must follow market rules, and unhappily for me and many, they dictate that, most of the time, better products are more expensive. There are exceptions, surely, but if some one can make something better that is cheaper than the competition he will take its place. If by some particular reason, we prefer a cheaper product, or do not valuate or recognize the features of the more expensive ones, we can be very happy. But I would be very happy if someone could offer me a pair of Alexandria X2.

BTW, I confess that highend audio for me is an hobby for my free time, that combines the social, technical and musical facets. Most of the time I will be discussing equipment that I borrowed, will not keep, listened at friends systems or shops and can only dream about. Some of us enjoy discussing it and as soon as some created a forum entitled WBF we must use all the spectrum.

andy_c · Jul 20, 2011

Did you know that Teresa's mother can tell the difference between different speaker cables from another room, while doing the dishes? I am not kidding!

Yes, that's the same Teresa.

Ron Party · Jul 20, 2011

terryj said:
am I allowed to say 'what a load of...cobblers'?

A huge reeking load. Not worth the time I spent reading it. Missing from that article are those pesky little things called, what do we call them, hmmmm, oh now I remember: facts.

Micro, that ABX is more than just a development tool is not legitimately in dispute. Stating it is so sure serves to muddy the waters, at least for those that do not have a correct understanding.

Roger, did you read the blog referenced by Tom in this thread? Please consider that you may be reinforcing the very same stereotypes all of us found condescending in that blog.

FrantzM · Jul 20, 2011

If High End Audio was to follow market rules for electronic consumer goods. Prices would be falling not increasing at the speed of light.. yet High End Audio does follow some marketing rules. So well that its staunchness defenders are (some of) the hobbyist themselves. For many this industry can do no wrong and everything is for the good and advancement of the hobby. Such devotion is to be commended by the industry.

Coming back to this ...err...."article" this paragraph

In our world of music enjoyment there are subjectivists "music listeners" and objectivists "audio scientists" who try to measure phenomenon. Music listeners believe what they hear with their ears. Audio scientists do not believe what they hear unless they can quantify and measure it. If they cannot measure it, it does not exist and they convince themselves they are not hearing what they hear! My quest is to show the wisdom of enjoying the sound of music and accepting what one hears, even if it cannot be scientifically proven.

is symptomatic of the false distinction that some try to construct between "objectivists" and "subjectivists". Listening to Music is the Art, the Magic that stir our soul and emotions... Reproducing it via electronics means is Engineering and led itself to science and technology, no magic involved here: Applications of known physical principles and of known technologies. The more one reads into this article the more one can see the only apt description for it is: "drivel".

I will not waste one more electron on it.

microstrip · Jul 20, 2011

Ron Party said:
(...) Micro, that ABX is more than just a development tool is not legitimately in dispute. Stating it is so sure serves to muddy the waters, at least for those that do not have a correct understanding. (...)

Sorry, but IMHO what muddies the waters it the wrong use of many "objectivists" (not you surely) that challenge people for tests using ABX and DBX and also do not understand the basics of statistics inherent of the method and why it was developed. BTW, I would love if we had an expert with us that could answer some doubts I have on it.

Anyway, I still consider that my observation is legitimate in a thread with this tittle. And yes, I also think the quality of the article in question is very poor, but having a poor defender does not equate guilt.

Vincent Kars · Jul 20, 2011

Bit more Teresa: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=45744

DS-21 · Jul 20, 2011

microstrip said:
Let us suppose that a golden ear audiophile or cable developer can get a 25/25 score ABX test on cables. Will it universally prove that cables can make a difference?

Of course not. It will, however, if the result can be replicated either by that person at a different time, or by multiple people at once (remember, it's entirely possible for one person to flip a coin and come on a run of 25 tails.) prove that one cable can sound different from another.

If there are no measurements that adequately explain why that cable sounded different - for example, I could once tell a difference between an MIT speaker cable and something else on a pair of Martin Logan Quest-Xs, but that was just because the network on the MIT was a highpass filter that measurably rolled off the highs at least on a panel speaker with impedance falling with frequency increasing - that would be a bombshell result.

Until/unless a measured phenomenon was found that was then independently correlated to the observed sonic difference, such a finding would literally destroy the whole objective "audio is engineering, not magic" mantra of rational music lovers. (I hate the term "objectivist" because of its political overtones.)

Yet no wire company has been able to (legitimately) create that result. Does anybody really wonder why?

microstrip said:
Or should we have an individual ABX examination before being able to buy expensive equipment?

You are making the unwarranted assumption that people buy "expensive equipment" exclusively for sonic reasons. In truth, there are many other legitimate subjective reasons to pick one box over another that have absolutely nothing do to with sonics. I bet there are a few people, at least, who are buying Lexicon's BDP-83 recase even though they KNOW it's a BDP-83 with a ~$3000 premium for zero sonic gain. However, they might want to match their other Lexicon gear, they have a good rapport with a dealer who will come and set it up for them, they might like the display color better (the Lex puts a filter over the BDP-83's display) or maybe they just want to be able to say "my player cost more than yours." Whatever the reason, so long as it's not based on sonics (we are, after all, talking about identical products, except for the recase) it's entirely reasonable.

Ron Party · Jul 20, 2011

microstrip said:
Sorry, but IMHO what muddies the waters it the wrong use of many "objectivists" (not you surely) that challenge people for tests using ABX and DBX and also do not understand the basics of statistics inherent of the method and why it was developed.

Partially agree. The use of this tool by those "objectivists" who don't have a correct understanding of what is an ABX is regrettable. (I'm not sure about DBX because I don't know what it is.)

But, you start off your sentence with the word "Sorry" which I presume (I could be in error here) means that you disagreed with my statement, i.e., that ABX is more than just a development tool. As such your statement also is regrettable as it is patently false. Mischaracterizations and stereotypes muddy the waters, which is precisely the case here.

andy_c · Jul 20, 2011

Much of what is in this article is stuff she just made up. The bit about how SACD would have replaced CD is one of them. Ridiculous! She also claims there is a need to listen to A, B and X in succession. She just made that one up too. Here's a link to a video showing how to use the ABX comparator software component that's installable into the foobar2000 player. As you can see there are many useful options and no such constraint.

She also says this:

Teresa Goodwin said:
I believe even the most golden-eared audiophiles would not be able to identify differences with any statistical accuracy between an MP3 music file and a professional master recording using ABX double-blind testing protocols.

She just made that one up too. The foobar2000 ABX comparator has been in use for many years, and the "tin-eared objectivists" at hydrogenaudio.org have been able to successfully ABX 320k MP3 against the original WAV file. As the bit rate goes higher, this becomes more and more difficult, and usually involves discovering a so-called "killer sample". That's the name given to a sample of music which, for whatever reason, shows the flaws in lossy encoding in a clear way.

The article is mostly a combination of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and outright fabrication.

Is ABX finally Obsolete

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Technical Expert: Computer Audio

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads