And it is quite clear that you will continue to misunderstand and misstate the processes involved in an ABX audio test, even though you admitted you really don't know what happens. But, nice to state, effectively that "we'll" never know because "you" don't run an audio testing laboratory. I am sure no one who does this style of test has any experience in testing human perception ....
It's rather "interesting" that "memory" or pathways, or whatever, are good enough to "remember" well enough to know if they prefer A or B, but not well enough to remember if they prefer C more than A, or C more than B. That is what you are stating even if you think you are not.
You whole argument is based on assuming a process that you admittedly don't know, and then assuming it must not be the one you feel it should be or would be more successful. That is bad science.
As a counterpoint, people who are not "audiophiles" have been shown, several times, to be more adept at detecting minor differences when they are trained, i.e. taught what the differences are likely to be, and given examples. They create the appropriate pathways for detection of differences. To be clear, more adept than "audiophiles". Based on communication of audiophiles when they compare cables, certainly on here, I would say that preference is exactly the method they use, or at least claim to.
Here is the thing. When comparing two of anything in audio, like in AB or ABX testing, the descriptors are invariably related to preference. More natural. Improved soundstage. Pinpoint imaging. Tighter bass. Sweet mids. These are comparative descriptors, not unary descriptors. That indicates preference.
Let's not forget that while double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard, there is no more success achieved in AB testing either, which as per the used descriptors, are preference related.
It's rather "interesting" that "memory" or pathways, or whatever, are good enough to "remember" well enough to know if they prefer A or B, but not well enough to remember if they prefer C more than A, or C more than B. That is what you are stating even if you think you are not.
You whole argument is based on assuming a process that you admittedly don't know, and then assuming it must not be the one you feel it should be or would be more successful. That is bad science.
As a counterpoint, people who are not "audiophiles" have been shown, several times, to be more adept at detecting minor differences when they are trained, i.e. taught what the differences are likely to be, and given examples. They create the appropriate pathways for detection of differences. To be clear, more adept than "audiophiles". Based on communication of audiophiles when they compare cables, certainly on here, I would say that preference is exactly the method they use, or at least claim to.
Here is the thing. When comparing two of anything in audio, like in AB or ABX testing, the descriptors are invariably related to preference. More natural. Improved soundstage. Pinpoint imaging. Tighter bass. Sweet mids. These are comparative descriptors, not unary descriptors. That indicates preference.
Let's not forget that while double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard, there is no more success achieved in AB testing either, which as per the used descriptors, are preference related.
