I see the issue with ABX blind testing

2) You wrote there are 7 PCs but it was not 7 PCs. Some were just repeat. It’s like a trap and bring a confusion.

ABX implies that you listen to A, then B and then X which will be either A or B. Paul McGowan of PS Audio is of the same opinion that you are, he doesn't like the X part of ABX as he feels that he's being tricked. But it's not meant to trick you,  it's meant to discern whether you  can actually distinguish the difference between A & B and identify them when you don't know which you're listening to. If, after hearing A & B you can't tell which thing X represents that's a pretty good indication that they are indistinguishable.

I'm content with where I've ended up  on  this journey & you sound like you are too. We can part as friends & move on.

I'm content with where I've ended up  on  this journey & you sound like you are too. We can part as friends & move on.

I wrote a trap (bit offensive) in my defense. This thread has been a joy to me. I learned few lessons and I like this topic very much with many knowledgeable participants. Cheers. Alex/WTA

The problem with the X part is that we distinguish sound qualities differences by our unconscious body feeling not by conscious remembering .We felt a change we do not always perceive it clearly. we will perceive it more clearly by changing some acoustics parameters in the room or the gear. ..

The double blind ABX   test cannot be successful nor useful  out of our usual sound environment including our system/room  anyway ...

What is indistinguishable in some environment is distinguishable in our own .

You cannot do that by double blind testing with ABX method at all ...

The x part will introduce a conscious interference ( a suspicion and a self doubt the stress of being tricked ) that will impede your relaxed spontaneous body feeling continous reaction in each acoustics  continuous parameters change when you adjust and tune an Helmholtz resonator mechanically for example as i did. ...

 

The goal is not a circus test , or an industrial statistical test on a hearing population but the goal is for you improving in an incremental but continuous way your own acoustic environment ...You cannot do it and felt compelled to prove it at each minor improvement... It is preposterous... Only people with no psychoacoustics understanding can propose that or people in the business of debunking gear marketing... Like objectivist techno cultist... 😊

Simple blind test is useful and enough for any individual audiophile.

 

 

2) You wrote there are 7 PCs but it was not 7 PCs. Some were just repeat. It’s like a trap and bring a confusion.

ABX implies that you listen to A, then B and then X which will be either A or B. Paul McGowan of PS Audio is of the same opinion that you are, he doesn’t like the X part of ABX as he feels that he’s being tricked.

@mahgister I do not - I have been involved in blind ABX testing in audio and in science.

How the Brain Fills in the Blanks | Psychology Today

Your brain is filling the blanks. Don’t believe us? Try this… - COVE | Center of Visual Expertise (covectr.com)

There is more information out there, just like this. Our brain doesn’t change what it does because we say it is audio.

@mahgister I do not - I have been involved in blind ABX testing in audio and in science.

How the Brain Fills in the Blanks | Psychology Today

 

 

This is just common place facts almost pop psychology used as pretext to the debunk circus in audio using ABX ...😊

Child play sorry ...

 

 

 

Hearing is way more deep and way more trustful friend who helped us to survive in Nature than way more just a trickster or a child filling blank at random ... ...Hearing was refine ability was key to survival in Nature and society through speech immediate perception of nuances .

«"In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted).»

https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html

 

 

About the phenomenology of perception read real books not psychology today ... 😊

The physicist Henri Bortoft analysing the phenomenology of perception with Goethe : "taking the appearence seriously "

And for acoustic this unknown writer is just confirmed by the last acoustic research Which is here:

https://www.sciencealert.com/pythagoras-was-a-genius-but-he-was-wrong-about-one-thing

Now the real studies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45812-z

Akpan J. Essien in his book "sound Sources" way before the studies who demonstrate how Pythagoras was wrong describe it perfectly :

Here an article because the book is 50 bucks 😁 :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327268_The_Body-Image_Theory_of_Sound_An_Ecological_Approach_to_Speech_and_Music

 

As you can see i dont read pop psychology magazine describing how our hearing can be fooled ...

It is one side of the coin the other side is how our hearing create his own world of meaning and how our hearing beat the Fourier uncertainty limit thirteen times and nobody understand how this is possible...

Perhaps you learned to play with ABX protocol to debunk cables believers but i designed my own acoustic room  and learned basic enough to know that if the Ears/brain can be fooled it is not the rule because we would had not survive our hallucinations or unrealistic and unnatural biases ...