[LightFire]

I couldn't find ABX tests in the glossary. Isn't that weird?

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

[Marbles]

No other METHODS of comparing or measuring were in the glossary either. So what is your point?












*Although "distortion" was defined, it isn't a method.

[miklorsmith]

Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary

J. Gordon Holt, July, 1993

Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. . .

Since the reference is a guide to review terminology and some attempt to standardize terms, it isn't odd at all.

[LightFire]

No other METHODS of comparing or measuring were in the glossary either. So what is your point?














*Although "distortion" was defined, it isn't a method.

I taught was odd to leave ABX out because it is quite an "eye opening" and very commom test. If no other methods are present that is even more strange. But I can think of only two other: comparing trough measurement instruments and non-blind testing (this one quite straight forward). Do you know of any other?

[Marbles]

You totally missed the point of the Glossary, you might want to read the first page again to see what their intention was.

[Ethan Winer]

I can think of only two other: comparing trough measurement instruments and non-blind testing (this one quite straight forward). Do you know of any other?

The best way to measure an electronic device for "transparency" is called the Null Test. You combine the input to the device (using a Y splitter) with its own output, reversing the polarity of one signal. If the Device Under Test (DUT) adds no noise or distortion, you should be able to balance the levels such that no signal results.

Of course, no active device will null completely, but if it's reasonably good the remaining signal will be reduced by many dB. For example, if all that remains is 80 dB below either signal, then all distortion plus noise products are 0.01 percent. The beauty of the Null Test is that it's absolute, and requires little skill to implement, and requires no measuring instruments other than a simple voltmeter.

--Ethan

[LightFire]

You totally missed the point of the Glossary, you might want to read the first page again to see what their intention was.

I still think ABX fits in. Once we establish a difference between 2 samples we still need to (subjectively) decide which one sounds better.

[miklorsmith]

So, what's the point of this thread exactly?

[LightFire]

So, what's the point of this thread exactly?

The existence of a Stereophile audio glossary that excludes ABX.

[woodsyi]

The existence of a Stereophile audio glossary that excludes ABX.

You know that it would be untrue.   

[Steve Eddy]

I couldn't find ABX tests in the glossary. Isn't that weird?

Well to be fair, it's not Stereopihle's glossary. It's a piece by Gordon Holt who excerpted from his The Audio Glossary which he published he published completely separately from Stereophile in 1990. If you read the title of the piece, and Gordon's introduction, you'll see that the context of the article is the subjective evaluation of audio equipment with an emphasis on describing one's subjective experience. And if you look at the glossary entries that he excerpted, you'll see that they all center around this, rather than being general terms relating to audio as a whole.

So, when this article is considered in its proper context, I don't find that it's weird at all that ABX tests was left out of it.

If you want a glossary that has to do with audio more generally, get a copy of Gordon's The Audio Glossary. In it you'll find A/B test, ABX comparator, blind test and double-blind test.

You'll also find these:

dingus Anything whose name you can't think of.

doohickey A dingus that functions as a kluge.

kluge Any unusual or unscientific improvisation that makes a device work better, or work at all. A form of technological cheating.



se

[Steve Eddy]

You totally missed the point of the Glossary, you might want to read the first page again to see what their intention was.

Methinks that some folks are contextually impaired. 

se

[Steve Eddy]

I still think ABX fits in. Once we establish a difference between 2 samples we still need to (subjectively) decide which one sounds better.

And what has an ABX test to do with deciding which one sounds better?

se

[LightFire]

I still think ABX fits in. Once we establish a difference between 2 samples we still need to (subjectively) decide which one sounds better.

And what has an ABX test to do with deciding which one sounds better?

se

First you differentiate between 2 samples. Then you decide which one is better. ABX takes the placebo effect out of picture, not necessarily the "subjectivity".

[miklorsmith]

Whether you believe in ABX testing is irrelevant to whether it is properly defined in a Stereophile article dedicated to subjective evaluation terms.

If you were advocating some evaluation process for use by aphiles, that is another topic. 

This thread is like a cow with chicken legs, it doesn't stand up.  Please let it expire.

[LightFire]

Whether you believe in ABX testing is irrelevant to whether it is properly defined in a Stereophile article dedicated to subjective evaluation terms.

If you were advocating some evaluation process for use by aphiles, that is another topic. 

This thread is like a cow with chicken legs, it doesn't stand up.  Please let it expire.

I just wanted to state that in my opinion ABX has a place in the Stereophile subjective glossary. What's wrong with that?!

[Steve Eddy]

First you differentiate between 2 samples. Then you decide which one is better. ABX takes the placebo effect out of picture, not necessarily the "subjectivity".

The article had nothing to do with objective testing. Nor did it really have anything particularly to do with deciding whether anything is better or not. The article was ultimately about language as it relates to subjective listening and relating one's subjective experience. And objective, ABX testing has absolutely no relevance to that.

se

[Steve Eddy]

I just wanted to state that in my opinion ABX has a place in the Stereophile subjective glossary. What's wrong with that?!

Nothing so long as there's also nothing wrong with my stating my opinion that the opinion that an objective test method has a place in a subjective glossary is an absurd one.

se

[mfsoa]

I changed my speaker cables. The soundstage got wider, but it was less transparent and the AB/X was reduced considerably.

[mjosef]

Methinks that some folks are contextually impaired. 

se

I would add continuously to your "contextually impaired" statement. Thus: continuously contextually impaired.

What is life without humor.