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.

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

[...]
Arny Krueger has a degree in electrical engineering, has worked as a development and maintenance engineer in a number of areas of electronics, primarily IT and audio. He is the inventor of the ABX Comparator and did the first ABX test that was ever done.

OK, so Arny worked on the ABX comparator, a major advancement over previous ABX techniques, but was not the primary inventor.

What have you done that is so memorable?

OK, so Arny worked on the ABX comparator, a major advancement over previous ABX techniques, but was not the primary inventor.

What have you done that is so memorable?

Quote from: pdq on 2014-11-19 17:29:50

OK, so Arny worked on the ABX comparator, a major advancement over previous ABX techniques, but was not the primary inventor.

What was the major advancement?

Our ABX test was designed to simulate real world hifi listening where people often listen to the same song or musical selection over and over again.  We instruct listeners to compare A&X and B&X in pairs and make their best guess as to whether they think X is A or B. It is not an identification test, it is a same/different comparison test.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-19 17:53:44

Our ABX test was designed to simulate real world hifi listening where people often listen to the same song or musical selection over and over again.  We instruct listeners to compare A&X and B&X in pairs and make their best guess as to whether they think X is A or B. It is not an identification test, it is a same/different comparison test.

Hi Arny.  Thank you for your kind contribution to the thread.

Maybe others get this but I don't.  Here is what the Bell Labs authors said about their ABX method:

An observer is presented with a time sequence of three signals for each judgment he is asked to make. During the first time interval he hears signal A, during the second, signal B, and finally signal X. His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval.

It says almost word for word how you describe what you say you invented.  One listens to A, then B and then X and asked whether X is closer to A or B.

And what does this have to do with your starting comment of how people listen to music?  I am not aware of anyone listening to a 5 second section of a song as we often do when testing with ABX.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

And what does this have to do with your starting comment of how people listen to music?  I am not aware of anyone listening to a 5 second section of a song as we often do when testing with ABX.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 18:04:22

And what does this have to do with your starting comment of how people listen to music?  I am not aware of anyone listening to a 5 second section of a song as we often do when testing with ABX.

I am very aware of people listening to short segments of songs for both musical purposes and technical purposes. 

Let's see where this goes, but my money is on a slow-building ad-hom argument regarding something completely unrelated, like the actual usefulness of ABX tests for instance.

Let's see where this goes, but my money is on a slow-building ad-hom argument regarding something completely unrelated, like the actual usefulness of ABX tests for instance.

BTW for people who live in the Great Lakes region, the audio club that invented ABX (named SMWTMS) has a bimonthly meeting coming up:

AFAIK there are a number of AVS-ers in the SE Michigan area and that is where ABX was invented and were the most expertise relating to it still lives.

ABX was invented to deal with exactly this problem. It's 1975 or so and a bunch of guys in the Detroit area trying to get an home audio equipment builder's club off of the ground.

I'll reveal a hidden agenda: ABX was invented in the late 1970s in order to bring reason back to power amplifier design and resolve the exceptional claims in favor of science. Influential members of the AES review board were close to begging that something like ABX be invented and gave expedited handling to my good friend David L. Clark's paper describing it when it appeared. I was an innocent naive pawn in that game, which I in no way regret.

Yes - the inventors commentary on his own creation.  

If you are talking about ABX - deal with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

I promise you that have had nothing to do with its creation at all, other than do some of the things that are being described by other people.

Since you seem to like contests, please post a link to a Wikipedia article of comparable authority and depth about something that you invented.

When I invented ABX testing almost 40 years ago, I was surprised at how differently  much equipment measured, but still we couldn't hear any differences.  I was amazed that so many components with such large measured differences in performance ended up being sonically indistinguishable.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-19 18:23:33

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 18:04:22

And what does this have to do with your starting comment of how people listen to music?  I am not aware of anyone listening to a 5 second section of a song as we often do when testing with ABX.

I am very aware of people listening to short segments of songs for both musical purposes and technical purposes. 

  Arny, you said this: Our ABX test was designed to simulate real world hifi listening...

Real world is not running audio tests in forums.

I don't remember ever when listening to music for "musical purposes" that I looped a few second segments of a test.

That aside, it still doesn't explain how what you did was any different than what Bell Labs luminaries created back in 1950.

"An observer is presented with a time sequence of three signals for each judgment he is asked to make. During the first time interval he hears signal A, during the second, signal B, and finally signal X. His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval."

An observer is presented with a time sequence of two signals in any order as many times as he desires for each judgment he is asked to make. 

During any time interval he can hear any of the signals A, B, or X as he desires.

His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval(s) was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval.  In addition to comparing A to X and B to X he can compare A to B to remind himself of what the difference between A and B is.

Your ABX switcher had no ability to loop any content.

It simply selected between two analog inputs. Any looping/repeating would have been done using the source equipment.  And same looping could have been done with other methodology than ABX.

Arny, have you ever given credit to Munson and Gardner for the original creation of ABX test?  If so, do you mind providing a link to it?

Indeed.  Really, who gives a sh*t?

I knew Arny didn't 'invent' the ABX method, and that a couple of close variants also existed in psychoacoustic testing.  He should have stopped asserting that long ago but Arny has never been shy about going 'all in'.  And neither is Amir.

The pissing match between these two is perhaps the least interesting yet most prevalent aspect of the train wreck.  (Though if nothing else it renders preposterous Amir's finger-wagging at those he says aren't  behaving 'professionally'.)

But again, so what? Show us something *really* damning about ABX , Amir, or STFU.  It's got to be better than 'Arny says he made it'.  If all this thread is going to be is you and Arny flinging wads of your own poop at each other over what happened in 1950 vs 1977, I suggest the mods shut it down right now.

It's been forever, but in case anyone's still interested in the article:
This is the first reference to the ABX test I've found. I'm pretty sure they invented the method. Look in the appendix for info on the actual method.

doi: 10.1121/1.1917047
Loudness Patterns---A New Approach
W. A. Munson and Mark B. Gardner, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 21, 59 (1949), DOI:10.1121/1.1917047

Perhaps once you've got your bibliography together, you could post a copy of it here?  There is a thread devoted to publications of potential interest to HA memebrs  (audio, psychoacoustics, etc), and such a list could be a good addition.

I knew Arny didn't 'invent' the ABX method, and that a couple of close variants also existed in psychoacoustic testing.  He should have stopped asserting that long ago but Arny has never been shy about going 'all in'.  And neither is Amir.

Let's see where this goes, but my money is on a slow-building ad-hom argument regarding something completely unrelated, like the actual usefulness of ABX tests for instance.

I think you are very confused about what constitutes an invention.  You also seem to be confused about what I invented.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2014-11-19 21:26:40

I think you are very confused about what constitutes an invention.  You also seem to be confused about what I invented.

Perhaps he's not of American culture. In many parts of the world, you did not invent anything and you just brag. Cross-cultural misunderstandings !

Edit: So you did know Arny was not the inventor as far back as 2008.  Shame you have stood quiet all this time.

Quote

That aside, it still doesn't explain how what you did was any different than what Bell Labs luminaries created back in 1950.

I'll repeat it again. What was different is that we didn't do what was described in that 1950 paper and its sequel. This is what we did not do:

Quote

"An observer is presented with a time sequence of three signals for each judgment he is asked to make. During the first time interval he hears signal A, during the second, signal B, and finally signal X. His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval."

Adopting the same terms and language for the point of further clarifying the difference:

Quote

An observer is presented with a time sequence of two signals in any order as many times as he desires for each judgment he is asked to make. 

During any time interval he can hear any of the signals A, B, or X as he desires.

His task is to indicate whether the sound heard during the X interval(s) was more like that during the A interval or more like that during the B interval.  In addition to comparing A to X and B to X he can compare A to B to remind himself of what the difference between A and B is.

How more obvious can the differences between the two ABX tests be?

The first difference is that the listener controls the test and can listen to what he wants to in any order.

The second difference is that the listener controls the test and can listen to what he wants to at any time.

The third difference is that he can compare all possible permutations of pairs sounds as he wishes.

Quote from: amirm on 2014-11-19 21:12:10

Edit: So you did know Arny was not the inventor as far back as 2008.  Shame you have stood quiet all this time.

I met Krab FTF back in 2005, and at that time he should have  known that I have long claimed to have invented ABX, did the first ABX test and single handedly built the first working ABX box.

He could have taken his misapprehensions up with me then. His recent negative comments shock me. Oh, well its not the first time I've misjudged someone.

Amir I know that I've created a context in which you have been able to further seriously damage your reputation which was not the best when I first conversed with you, and this is all just childish pay back. Sad.

You did not 'invent' the blind audio comparison protocol where the task is to identify X as either A or B, which AFAIC is the fundamental 'invention' here.

And really, I couldn't care less then, or now, whether you claim to have done so or not.

It means *nothing whatsoever* to the utility of ABX.

The Meridian paper contains an actual attempt at critique of ABX. This thread does not. It is simply another point-scoring sideshow against you, created by Amir out of his personal animus, entirely in line with the ceaseless niggling point scoring you both engage in against each other. There is nothing at all reputable about this thread, or its creator, in this regard. It's just mudslinging.

There is no need to deny the precedents in psychoacoustic research.

We stand on the shoulder of giants, etc., etc.

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.

In my book, for what it's worth, the circa 1979 ABX test methodology was a different animal to the 1950 ABX test methodology.  The newer test methodology is a user friendly test, at the listener's leisure, more likely to enable very fine differences to be identified.