History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention

For a while I have been curious as to origins of ABX testing.  Reading forum posts, it would indicate Arny invented the scheme.  You can see that from the post in the parallel thread and many quotes in AVS Forum:

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-16 02:32:13

However the ASA was publishing a great many papers based on the JASA version of ABX long before the AES even mentioned the AES version of ABX.  People who read journals and don't just drop their names know such things.  They also know the nature of the differences between the two. One of the items in the committee review of Clark's AES ABX paper included clarifying these things because enough people in the AES knew about the ASA version of ABX whcih came much earlier.  So did we.  BTW the letters ABX in the AES were originally a play on my initials.



Quote from: kodi41 link=msg=0 date=

this is for arnyk, you stated, and I quote:Quote: I invented ABX and was among the organizers and participants in many of those tests that are in the archives.

IF this be the case- then you can easily describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

I did the first ABX test in late April, 1977. No, it is not easy for me to describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

Good morning Arny and other members.  I was in the middle of reading Arny's last post and darn Windows decided to reboot without warning . I came back and it is gone???  It was Arny addressing Steven (Krab).  Did you delete it Arny?

Anyway, I was still trying to stitch this story together and landed unintentionally on another AVS Forum set of posts discussing this very topic.  So the interest to clear up the history here is shared more broadly than me. 

Quote from: arny on AVS link=msg=0 date=



Quote from: kodi41 link=msg=0 date=

this is for arnyk, you stated, and I quote:Quote: I invented ABX and was among the organizers and participants in many of those tests that are in the archives.

IF this be the case- then you can easily describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

I did the first ABX test in late April, 1977. No, it is not easy for me to describe what equipment was used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this testing was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what type of music was used.

Arny, help us out please.  How could your recollection of something this important in your life as to have built an entire persona around it on the Internet be so poor?  I often hear you tell stories about old gear you had, their performance, design, etc.  But here, no recollection at all?  No way to document what led to your strong belief in efficacy of said invention?  Nothing at all?

The first big mistake is hanging so much weight on what are small details.  Amir as I understand it, you were alive and kicking in late April 1977. Why don't you accomplish that you fault me for not doing - list out the equipment you used- brand, model numbers and the source player(s) pre-amp and speakers that were used, as well at what power level this listening was performed at. As well, how long the time of listening sessions were. And as well what musical tracks you were listening to on that day.

The amplifiers being compared in my first ABX test were the amplifiers in my Heath AR1500 versus my Dyna 400. The preamp was the preamp section of the AR1500. The turntable was a Thorens TD125 with a SME 3009 tone arm and V15 cartrdige. The speakers were Ohm Fs.  The power had to be fairly limited because pushing the AR1500 even just close to clipping (60 wpc) would take out the fast blow speaker fuses in the Ohm Fs.  One of the musical tracks I played was the Sheffied D2D "King James Version".  There were full-track familiarization sessions and shorter test sessions that were scored.

Quote

You and David Clarke *did* take A/B/X comparison (or re-invent it yourselves) and make it something less academic, and more directly meaningful and useful, to home audio.  And made it part of the parlance of the audio hobby.  There is honor enough in that.

I had nothing to do with David Clarke. The man you are probably thinking of is David Clark, no E.  BTW there is a document somewhere signed by David Clark and Bernhard Muller and 3 other witnesses that agrees that I invented the Improved ABX test that among other things, Clark wrote up for the JAES.

Arny, help us out please.  How could your recollection of something this important in your life as to have built an entire persona around it on the Internet be so poor?  I often hear you tell stories about old gear you had, their performance, design, etc.  But here, no recollection at all?  No way to document what led to your strong belief in efficacy of said invention?  Nothing at all?

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-20 16:02:11

Arny, help us out please.  How could your recollection of something this important in your life as to have built an entire persona around it on the Internet be so poor?  I often hear you tell stories about old gear you had, their performance, design, etc.  But here, no recollection at all?  No way to document what led to your strong belief in efficacy of said invention?  Nothing at all?

I feel embarassed for you.

How about we lock this topic now?

The “prior art” is quite clear so by formal legal (patent) definition the invention is not one either.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 15:52:23

The “prior art” is quite clear so by formal legal (patent) definition the invention is not one either.

Almost every "invention" has some kind of prior art, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being patentable.

The differences in application (psychoacoustic tests vs audio equipment tests) wouldn't help.
The fact that one is an automated mechanical switcher and the other is a user controlled switch box wouldn't help, because user controlled switch boxes are nothing new.
However, the fact that the newer version allows the user to switch back and forth while retaining the same hidden choice of X is a useful and (unless there is evidence to the contrary) novel difference.

The invention was first realised as a real physical machine that works. The earlier ABX method pre-dates it by 30 years, yet no one else applied it to audio equipment tests. It can't have been particularly obvious to do so.

Also, it's apparent from the write-up that someone appreciated a problem, and invented something that solved it. There was a clear inventive step.

Those who understand patents will have ticked off the four words in bold and concluded that the invention was patentable, in the absence of further prior art to prove otherwise.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 15:52:23

The “prior art” is quite clear so by formal legal (patent) definition the invention is not one either.

Almost every "invention" has some kind of prior art, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being patentable.

The differences in application (psychoacoustic tests vs audio equipment tests) wouldn't help.

The fact that one is an automated mechanical switcher and the other is a user controlled switch box wouldn't help, because user controlled switch boxes are nothing new.

However, the fact that the newer version allows the user to switch back and forth while retaining the same hidden choice of X is a useful and (unless there is evidence to the contrary) novel difference.

The invention was first realised as a real physical machine that works. The earlier ABX method pre-dates it by 30 years, yet no one else applied it to audio equipment tests. It can't have been particularly obvious to do so.

Also, it's apparent from the write-up that someone appreciated a problem, and invented something that solved it. There was a clear inventive step.

Those who understand patents will have ticked off the four words in bold and concluded that the invention was patentable, in the absence of further prior art to prove otherwise.

I assert that I am the sole designer and builder of the first working ABX1982 box. Since that box was the first working implementation of any or all the basic technologies that were unique to it (such as the solution to the timing problem that Clark mentions in his JAES paper) I was sole designer and builder of that box which I used to do the first ABX1982 listening test.

For me, its about working to the highest possible standard. In the case of ABX, I invented the standard.

Take it up over there. This topic will now close.

I've opened the discussion to allow further discussion.  When the quotes have all come from another forum, in which the two main parties are actively involved, it seems strange to air the laundry over here.

Nevertheless...

I dumped vinyl in 1984 which was about 7 years after 1977 when I invented ABX.

Not weird - totally expected. Perceptions exactly like those stated above is the big reason why I invented ABX.

The above paragraph pretty much describes our state of mind when we invented ABX.

I invented ABX to unmire myself from the false thinking and claims of high end publications like the Atkinson Stereophile and TAS.

[And thanks for inventing ABX, by the way. That was a huge contribution, unlike this relatively trivial matter!]

Quote from: 2Bdecided on 2014-11-21 10:08:11

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 15:52:23

The “prior art” is quite clear so by formal legal (patent) definition the invention is not one either.

Almost every "invention" has some kind of prior art, and it doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being patentable.

Hi David.  Thanks for your contributions to here.  As to your point, such prior art would have to clearly be stated in the patent application as to allow the examiner a chance to see if the new application is the same or different. To my knowledge, and I am sure every member here, Arny has never provided the reference to Munson and Gardner paper and their work.  As you know, exclusion of such critical prior art is seen as a serious offense in patent applications and would put the applicant in super bad light should it come to surface later.

Quote

The invention was first realised as a real physical machine that works. The earlier ABX method pre-dates it by 30 years, yet no one else applied it to audio equipment tests. It can't have been particularly obvious to do so.

Taking that argument as is, the current ABX tests using computer programs does not do that.  It is indeed far closer to the original 1950 ABX system than any physical box built.  In that sense then, Arny should never mention his "invention" in the modern context where we are talking about software comparators.

Quote

Those who understand patents will have ticked off the four words in bold and concluded that the invention was patentable, in the absence of further prior art to prove otherwise.

That seems like a shot across my bow .

See this for a small indication of my knowledge there: http://www.boliven.com/patents/search?q=(%...+Majidimehr%22).  I had to deal routinely with patent claims when I was at Microsoft.  While no one other than a specialized patent attorney can give proper evaluation of such things, I am no stranger to the topic.  Or else, I would not have created this thread.  Based what I know, Arny has built a swtichbox, not invented ABX.

What you are missing in your list is one of the key aspects of patent law in many countries: test of non-obviousness.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_ste...non-obviousness

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive — i.e., non-obvious — in order to be patented.[1] In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art."[2]

Had this been a true patent application and Arny had correctly referenced prior art in the form of the 1950 disclosure, the application would have been rejected with speed of light.  Why?  How could it be more obvious?  The original test names the scheme ABX.  What does Arny name it?  ABX!  Clearly that name came about because what he built was a box implementing said scheme.  It is obvious to anyone schooled in the art, i.e. a design engineer, that building an implementation of a prior invention is not an invention by itself. 

You could patent the novel aspects of the circuit design if there were any.  But not the functionality of the box.  The box implements what the original art says: presents the user with A, B and asks if X is if X is closer to A or B.  If I polled a 100 people here without the context of this thread, do you think they would say something different about ABX test methodology?  They would not, right?  So the "invention" we use and care about now is what was disclosed in 1950.  None of us use a hardware ABX comparator so saying one "invented" that is not material, nor does it provide a distinction of value to members discussing matters related to blind testing.

The box implements what the original art says: presents the user with A, B and asks if X is if X is closer to A or B.

I have to point out that the "abx" test of Munson was a sequential test, not a time-proximate test in which the subject had control over stimulus selection at all points in time.  This test has been brought up from time to time, and various people have taken upon themselves to scold the entire AES about how this sequential test is such a bad test (as it is, the lack of time proximity is massively desensitizing), ignoring the fact that this is NOT the modern test called "ABX".

The ABX test from the Michigan bunch was time-proximate.  This is a substantial improvement, and is what is commonly referred to in the present day as the ABX test.  There may still be an issue of silences inserted, or clicks. It's a difficult problem to solve with 1960's technology, but it's at least mostly time-proximate.

Modern ABX tests using windowed digital switching are even better, of course.

Much of an ABX test, however, comes in the material selection, listener training, listener comfort, and presence of listener feedback.

I have to point out that the "abx" test of Munson was a sequential test, not a time-proximate test in which the subject had control over stimulus selection at all points in time.

This test has been brought up from time to time, and various people have taken upon themselves to scold the entire AES about how this sequential test is such a bad test (as it is, the lack of time proximity is massively desensitizing), ignoring the fact that this is NOT the modern test called "ABX".

The ABX test from the Michigan bunch was time-proximate.  This is a substantial improvement, and is what is commonly referred to in the present day as the ABX test.  There may still be an issue of silences inserted, or clicks. It's a difficult problem to solve with 1960's technology, but it's at least mostly time-proximate.

Modern ABX tests using windowed digital switching are even better, of course.

Much of an ABX test, however, comes in the material selection, listener training, listener comfort, and presence of listener feedback.

I find foobar ABX plug-in woefully inadequate for finding small differences.

Quote

Much of an ABX test, however, comes in the material selection, listener training, listener comfort, and presence of listener feedback.

A failing unfortunately for just about every test cited on audio forums as proof of this and that.  The outcomes may still be right but the protocol certainly not.

I would also add to your list poor user interface.  I find foobar ABX plug-in woefully inadequate for finding small differences.  Its segment selection interface is horrid on full track for example.  Lack of recall for the segments once you find them makes it worse.  All of this again tilts the odds toward the "house" by generating negative outcomes.

In MPEG as you know we have our list of codec killers.  Where is that list for jitter over HDMI?

There are two divergent paths that start at this point. One is the selection and development of artificial sounds such pink noise that are more diagnostic for certain technical flaws such as frequency response variations. The other approach is sorting and selecting from actual recordings, either purpose built (e.g. SQAM) or what amounts to be random selections from contemporary or archival recordings.  Actual commercial recordings are probably the source whose relevance is most clear to the general public and audiophilia, but the process of finding them is almost completely random.