jkeny wrote: > This the lie that is at the core of your position Jkeny >
There is no lie, and the above is a vile but apparently very satisfying (to you) personal attack rooted in your frustration with your inability to understand the relevant facts. > > you know that "trained listeners" are an essential element for any blind > test to be successful > I've known this since I invented ABX. > > it's specified in the ITU BS.116 guidelines for blind testing. The > training element is a sighted process. > As usual Jkeny you have the critical facts incorrect. The name of the recommendation is BS 1116 not 116. The training is not necessarily sighted and it is most effective if it is as blind as you can make it. > > I gave jh901 "advice" not to overlook this training aspect & the > examples I gave, of real ABX tests further emphasise how essential such > isolation & identification of specific audible factors are crucial for a > useful & valid ABX test. > The alleged test you cited is a caricature of the real thing. I don't know if you are so fascinated by it because it is such a red herring, or if it is because of a desire to sabotage ABX. > > Completely immaterial to how to properly conduct an ABX test when > testing for anything other than grossly audible differences Anybody who takes advice about ABX from someone who hates ABX in their soul and will tell any lie as you have to sabotage ABX, deserves what they get. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
