Did Amir Change Your Mind About Anything?

Ah, the video where you are sitting in front of all the electronic analyzers that you used to visually real time analyze the ABX signals?

There is no such video.  Stop making stuff up AJ.  I have never, ever used an analyzer when taking these blind tests. 

You don't even understand the nature of these tests and whether an analyzer can even help you.  Take the Archimago test.  That test relies on bit depth of content, not anything that you can analyzer with an audio measurement device.  If you don't believe me, go ahead and show the difference using said analyzer.

Why is it that you are not complaining about @kevn?  Did he or did he not pass the test of high-res vs standard not just by himself, but a few of his friends?

You are not going to answer that, are you? 

@soundfield 

Would you do a proctored one at PAF 2024? Or only doctored?

I would *love* for you to set up such a blind test for everyone who comes to your room there.  Are you going to do that and publish the results at the end?

Or is it that you don't want to alienate potential buyers of your speakers so that is the last thing you would want to do?

@soundfield 

And flat FR is sometimes boring.

Virtually useless and perhaps harmful for deciding which sounds better.

As a speaker maker, what do you have to say about this?  Is CEA-2034 frequency response measurements "virtually useless" and "perhaps harmful" in determining the fidelity of the speaker?  

Wise and right on the target...

This shows a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of double-blind testing in audio, such as ABX testing. Such tests are not designed to test the listener - that’s the role of an audiologist. The listener isn’t under test at all. What’s being tested is whether two signals can be distinguished under the conditions of the test. That’s why the best blind test programs include multiple listeners and multiple trials.

Some might argue that, if a specific listener claims to expect a difference between, say, a hi-res and lo-res signal, that an ABX test with him is "testing the listener." But that’s mistaken. Such a test could only reveal whether that listener could distinguish a difference under the conditions of the test. Again, this why is why multiple tests yield more useful information.

It’s rather odd that Amir is so preoccupied with conducting measurements that he sometimes doesn’t bother to listen to the devices he tests, and yet on the other hand issues such proclamations about the tests he’s claimed to have "passed."

As an aside, conducting a proper audio double-blind test is tricky business. I've seen it done and it's not as easy as it looks. When they’re well conducted, I’ve found that many differences become harder to distinguish than might be expected. When they are improperly conducted, such a test has no advantage over a sighted test and can yield misleading results.

Just don't make contrived analogies as if that will amount to anything.

Practice what you preach. Are you incapable of feeling shame for what amounts to a contrived (and poorly constructed) analogy in your rebuttal? Practically everything you came up with reeks with desperation in an attempt to draw parallels of what passes for the rigors of testing in audio reproduction (if there really is such a thing) to what can be accomplished in ensuring accuracy in watches and the way they are measured, not to mention what even the highest standards of watch accuracy are and how they're determined. 

Have fun with your scopes.

All the best,
Nonoise