Posted by manualblock [ 69.112.69.86 ] on May 10, 2005 at 07:34:17:

In Reply to: Re: ABX posted by Wayne Parham on May 10, 2005 at 04:00:59:

I see now. The ABX argument for me is not about whether performing those tests can provide a reasonable approximation of an absolute truth; which is what they are designed to do;no?
I am more concerned about relying on them to prove a point; which is pointless.
The concept that since a difference is not quantified by an ABX test it cannot possibly exist is the shibboleth I am after.

I don't see it as a competition and there I think is the issue. I see it as a design tool; and that is why it needs to be addressed.
Processing sensory input to the CC is so little understood and lacking in a firm basis for making predictions that I am sure in the future the whole concept of ABX testing will be revamped. The best at this research cannot even agree on threshold limits. These tests are rudimentary at best and those who accuse skeptics of the methodology of being reactionists are themselves reactionists.
The sad part is depending on this type of testing to make design descisions will once again; like perfect sound forever set us back on the road to great and natural music reproduction.

Replies: