This is a obscure reference to the ideas of RAIFE F. SMITH II, which are available in a more accessible form:http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf
His rather odd beliefs are described therein:
"The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be
the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio
systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios
when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have
routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality.    
However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable
for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention
and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation
of home stereophonic audio systems.    It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests
were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective,
non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening
conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.
It should not be too difficult to understand that a testing methodology that is appropriate for evaluating simple
bandlimited monophonic signals would most probably not be appropriate for evaluating complex stereophonic signals that
cover the full range of human hearing and which are designed to convey aural, spatial and tactile information.
Telephone systems are audio systems, but they are audio systems which are primarily designed to convey clear voice
communication. Stereophonic systems are audio systems, but they are audio systems which are designed to convey a
weighty, complex, realistic illusion of a three-dimensional music concert performance."
The above is completely false in both its spirit and the details. The Bell system had absolutely nothing to do with the development of ABX. ABX was not developed for the purpose of "...evaluating simple bandlimited monophonic signals". All but one of the papers cited as support for the above paragaphs predate the JAES article that is generally considered to be the paper that introduced ABC by a decade or more. The paper later on cites that paper, so the author cannot claim ignorance.
What truth can come out of so many false claims?Edited by arnyk - 7/2/12 at 8:41am