Skip to main content
Topic: History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention? (Read 20243 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

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:
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.

Here are the examples from AVS Forum:
Quote
For me, its about working to the highest possible standard. In the case of ABX, I invented the standard.


And:
Quote
[...]
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.

There are many instances like that. 

When I ask Arny exactly what invention means, I don’t get a clear answer.  It may be just me so I thought I create this thread and see if we can get clarity on it once and for all.

In the quote above, Arny talks about AES.  The introduction to ABX testing was by a paper called 1982 paper:  High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator.   Its sole author is David Clark.  The only mention of Arny comes in this form:



No read of this gives credence to Arny being an inventor of ABX test for audio.  Their contributions seems to be building and popularizing the scheme for audio equipment testing which is great.  But in no way could one call that effort an invention.  If I build another alarm clock I would not call it an invention.  The “prior art” is quite clear so by formal legal (patent) definition the invention is not one either.

I am at a loss as to what AES version of ABX means.  Or for that matter the “JAES” version that Arny mentions.  Neither entity owns the work of the authors presenting papers and such.

Arny, would you be so kind as to clarify your position in all of this?  Do we have it right that ABX testing is 60+ years old and you had no role in inventing it?

Thanks in advance.






Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #1
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?

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #2
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.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #3
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?


The ABX Comparator that I invented back in the middle 1970s and that was written up by my (then) business associate Dave Clark in the JAES was not intended to be an improvement on the ASA ABX test. It was a different test that was devised for a different purpose.  We were of course aware of the JASA paper as was the AES review board.  The name ABX was among other things a play on my initials. "ABK's ABX test". ;-)

The ASA ABX test was designed for auditory testing and among other things was designed to get people's first impressions from just one instance of  listening.

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.

If you visit the "Audibility of Typical Digital Filters in a Hi-Fi Playback System, a follow-up to Meyer & Moran?" thread you will find a post where I just explained this all to Amir yesterday, so the confusing post above that tries to conflate the 2 different ABX tests is entirely his responsibility.

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

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #4
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?

Quote
What have you done that is so memorable?

Create a new thread with that topic and I will respond.  For now I appreciate it if you don't violate TOS #5 with off-topic posts.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #5
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?


It wasn't an advancement so much as creating a different listening test for a different purpose. The ASA articles that use their ABX test generally use it to test what people hear. The ABX test that we invented and that Clark wrote up in the JAES was designed to test audio gear.

You can find yet another example of a poorly informed golden eared pundit missing this point here:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-143

"Blind testing of playback gear does little more than test the listener—for the wrong thing—while the perceptible qualities of the product under evaluation go unremarked: We learn not about the audibility of subtle differences but rather about the ability of the listener to resist being tripped up by the person in charge."

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #6
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.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #7
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.


Amir I already explained this once. More evidence of poor reading comprehension.

The paper you cited rather obviously dates back to 1950 and describes a different test that was devised for a different purpose.

A paper written in 1950 can't possibly describe something different that was invented about 25 years later, right?

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #8
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test

Ah, thanks for the Wiki reference.  I forgot to address that in my starting post .

If you click on the reference for the line that has your name in it, it takes you to an Audio Dictionary book.  If you look in there you find the exact same thing as the Wiki says:



Except it adds the reference to Clark's paper at the end.  But we have Clark's paper in hand and it has no reference to any inventions, nor specific credit to you as the inventor.  What the two authors knew first hand about this situation is unknown. 

What can you tell us about who these people are with superior knowledge than your co-worker, Clark?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #9
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. 

For example I've seen musicians repeat short song segments and listen to them while practicing playing them, and also while transcribing them so they can cover them or write new songs.

Some of the more advanced members of our audio group listened to short segments of music that were especially diagnostic for audible differences and audible problems with audio gear long before (and after) we invented ABX.

There has long been a semi-officien collection of song segments called "The LTT" that was generally used for sighted listening.

The short segments were created by copying and editing tape, and also by cuing turntables, long before we had digital players that made it far easier and more reliable.

When they became available, CD recorders were used for the purpose of creating these compilations of short segments of music.

I imagine that most laymen are unware of these practices but they've been around for decades.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #10
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.

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?
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #11
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.



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.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #12
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.

Please file your complaint when that happens.  This thread is not about that.  It is about Arny mentioning his "invention" in many posts including the one I am responding.  Here is just a quick set of examples from the last few months on AVS:

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


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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.


You believe that AES was begging ABX to be invented and they went to Arny for it?

He keeps mentioning these things so let's figure out if it is true.  If it is not, then let's not be party to absconding credit from two of audio luminaries from Bell Labs.  Let's set the record straight.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #13
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.


We both know this sort of thing happens. So where does all of that sort of thing take place Amir?  Mars? No, it happens right here on the good green earth.

Running audio tests in audio forums is part of the real world.

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


I find that very hard to believe. But it doesn't matter because you are not the world's standard for human behavior.  The rest of us get to use whatever creative means that we may think up, and we did and have been doing it for a long 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
Your ABX switcher had no ability to loop any content.


It doesn't need to. There have always been other tools for that purpose.

Quote
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.


What is the problem with that?

Quote
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?


Munson and Gardner created a different tool for a different purpose as I have just explained for at least the third time in this thread.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #14
Indeed.  Really, who gives a sh*t?

Apparently you do or you would not violate TOS #5 with a personal rant about Arny and I.  Create a new thread and post it there please.

Quote
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.

So you stood and let the misinformation go on and on.

Quote
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'.)

When Arny and I argue, it is almost always with a lot of technical content and references.  When you and a few like you enter the discussion, it is always anger, bitterness, and resentment.  No technical content like the the post I am responding to.  The train wrecks get created by folks like you. 

You want to support ABX testing?  Post some results.  I don't recall seeing a single outcome of ABX tests in many rounds of testing.  Here is my record: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.p...ounds-different

Quote
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.

No.  The only fighting is what you are bringing to the table.  I have post facts and references and trying to ascertain something objective: where ABX testing came from.

The mods can close a thread without violating TOS.  That is their choice.  They are the host and I am the guest.  They get to follow or not follow their own stated rules.

If they close it, I will open it in WBF Forum.  The choice is theirs/yours.  I am comfortable either way.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #15
So I did a search on Munson and ABX and it landed on this forum!  With a thread very much like this one: http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=50909

It ended this way:

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


And this response from Steven (Krab):

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.


Edit: So you did know Arny was not the inventor as far back as 2008.  Shame you have stood quiet all this time.
Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, AudioScienceReview.com

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #16
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.


You get to be wrong on a number of points, Krab.

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

Here's a definition of the word invention:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invent

"to originate or create as a product of one's own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance"

You seem to believe that one needs to be the first to originate or create in order to invent something. You have conflated "Invention" with "Patentable Invention in the US and several other countries".

On the day I built the first known working ABX box of its kind in the universe (note, I didn't just invent the test, I invented a practical means to perform it all by yourself), I was not aware of what happened that was called ABX in 1950, and when I first found out about it I thought it was not just different but hideously different. I initially couldn't figure out why anybody with half a brain would do a listening test in such a difficult way. However I gave it a chance, read a few papers and figured out why it made sense, and it does make sense for certain purposes.

At this point a great deal has been written about doing product comparison tests and the ABX test I invented is just one little pigeon hole of a great many in the galaxy of ways to do that kind of test. 

The ABX test that I invented seems to have distinguished itself by having more ignorant BS written about it than any of its many siblings. The recent Meridian AES and Stereophile articles about it are probably not the most ignorant nor the last ignorant articles to be written about it.  So be it.


History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #17
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.

You won't have to wait long. 
This is all tied to the Hi-Rez scam industry and the fervent defender$.
Meyer & Moran used ABX to fully expose the Hi-Rez $cam, using real audiophiles, with the their real audiophile systems, in their real audiophile rooms and real audiophile "Hi-Rez" discs available at the time.
IOW, they did everything possible to (re)create the exact conditions audiophiles were "hearing" the benefits of the Hi-Rez scam and telling everyone on earth who listened.
Of course, the fatal flaw was that it was done 1) Blind, 2) Used ABX 3) Found the Golden Ears stone deaf to the obvious audible benefits of Hi-Rez.
Obviously for the $cam to continue, something had to be wrong. That something was ABX.
What has brought it to the forefront (this thread), is the recent BS paper from Meridian, where both M&M/ABX are mentioned and a much better/more realistic way of showing the benefits of the Hi-Rez $cam is concocted.
That better/more realistic way to hear Hi-Rez was to train some listeners, put them in an iso-ward (which might very well represent some audiophile rooms), blast some against-Meridian-website-recommendation-for-16/44 transparency-RPDF-dither-doctored cherry picked tracks, through some DR Berylium dome with metal resonance like every metal tweeter Meridian speakers, at near maximum levels.
Oh, using there own switching software.
The whole concoction seemed to yield positives, unlike the M&M ABX tests. So the Hi-Rez $cam trudges onward.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #18
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 !

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #19
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 !


I'm under the impression that Krab is a long-term US resident, probably born and raised here like I am.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #20
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.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #21
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.

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.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #22
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. 



 





History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #23
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.


As you have dumbed down the protocol at hand, it is true that I never made the mistake of applying it to Audio.

What I invented was double blind, level matched, and self-administered.

If you want to talk fundamentals, then we can go back to AB testing which is even more fundamental.

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


Steven you are in the interesting position of making a strong assertion and then abandoning it.

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


I agree with that.

Quote
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.


I observe that when when Amir slings mud at you Steven, you sling back at least as vigorously as I do. Yet your comments above and previously in this and other recent and ongoing threads seem to suggest that you think you are on some higher ground. I think that any objective judge would say that higher ground is a figment of your mind.

I also think that you are very wrong when you claim that this thread is an not attempt to critique ABX. It is an attempt to critique it as its title seems to clearly indicate. I agree with your description of the provenance of this thread.

However, like Amir you make the mistake of dumbing down what  the ABX system at hand actually is.

In the style of naming U.S. inventions, what I invented should probably be called "An Improved ABX Test".  In the opinion of patent-law-savvy engineers at the time, what I invented was probably patentable in the US as such.

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


Never did.  However that was not the provenance of the ABX testing being discussed now. Its provenance came out of medical research as being distinct from psychoacoustic research.

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


As did the authors of the 1950 paper that was cited near the beginning of this thread.  Obviously they stood on the shoulders of whoever invented AB testing.  Now coming up with the names of those giants would be a piece of scholarly research!

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.

As far as I'm concerned the formal definition of the Improved ABX test at hand is Clark's JAES paper which BTW describes another invention of mine - the transient free A/B analog switch AKA RM-2.

History and Accreditation of ABX Testing/Invention?

Reply #24
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.


Thank you. 

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019