Audio Critic

[jmercer]

Interesting proposal... can anyone see any holes in this proposed protocol? I can't.

[Orangutan]

Two sealed copies of identical discs will be opened and identically treated with Walker Audio Vivid, my standard procedure.

This is a surface treatment, I don't like this part. Or if it has to be done, he should do it before the testers apply the chip treatment. Otherwise he can say the testers didnt treat the disks to be chipped as well.

Also the test needs to be double blind. He should be made to number the disks before they are chiped so that he can't claim the marks made by the testers affected the CD.

So:
He buys 20 cd's of his choice. (10 pairs).
He treats and numbers the cd's #1 and #2 of each.
He then checks each and verifies they are identical.
He provides the disks and an unused 10-charge chip to the testers.
He then places the chip on the player (so he can't) claim the testers didn't know how to use the chip.

Then he goes away for a bit.

A tester then randomly selects #1 or #2 from the first pair to be treated, pops it in the player and plays it for two seconds. As per the chip instructions.
The tester marks down which one was treated for that CD pair.
The tester repeats for pairs 2-10. removing the final CD and putting it back in its case.

His treatments are sealed away somewhere, thick envelope or something. And handed to the testers who will conduct the rest of the test. The "Treater(s)" can't be present for the rest of the testing.

The applicant is then reminded to remove the device from the player and put it back in its case.
The applicant is then given his 2-75 min sessions with a 1 hour break to identify the treated CD's

The once done, the usual post test formalities Recording the applicant saying its a fair test and that he could tell the difference in the CD's

Envelope opend and results compared. Apllicant given opportunity to explain any failure that occured.

:) something like that anyway. I am concerned that with the surface treatment the "Treater" could leave marks on the CD's indicating which were handled. Perhaps the tester would need to handle both CD's but only put 1 in the player to be treated.

O.

Edits for spelling.

[jmercer]

Good summary, good points. Maybe they should treat all the disks with the surface treatment, but only "chip" the two?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Which protocol?, there is no link or info.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Which protocol?, there is no link or info.

Here you go:

Audio Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53824)

[Rob Lister]

Originally said by MICHAEL ANDA
All accessory products I use within my system are allowed to remain.

Soppose one of those accessories detects the presense of the treatment and relays that data to a listener that knows what to listen for (a beep or click or hum)

[Metullus]

1. What is the possibility that two "identical" CDs are not, in fact, indistiguishible from one another?

2. Should the test subject first listen to the untreated CDs and confirm that they are identical?

3. Should the listening pairs be randomly selected to include:

1 Treated & 1 un-treated
Same untreated played twice
Same treated played twice

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Metullus
1. What is the possibility that two "identical" CDs are not, in fact, indistiguishible from one another?

Unless one is damaged, theoretically they should be identical since they are digital in nature. Either the 1's and 0's are there or they're not. Loss of a few bits here and there wouldn't be detectible. Loss of multiple bits might be.

The more I think about it, the more I object to this surface treatment. It's possible that the surface treatment may alter the CD player's ability to read the digital pattern properly, distorting the sound.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
Unless one is damaged, theoretically they should be identical since they are digital in nature. Either the 1's and 0's are there or they're not. Loss of a few bits here and there wouldn't be detectible. Loss of multiple bits might be.

The more I think about it, the more I object to this surface treatment. It's possible that the surface treatment may alter the CD player's ability to read the digital pattern properly, distorting the sound.

Reason I asked: For christmas we recieved two identical DVDs of The Return of the KIng. Fresh out of the box, they each had a defect, a momentary freezing of the video without affecting the audio. The defects, however are not in precisely the same place on the video tract. One occurs just as three characters leap from a ship, the other occurs perhaps 5 seconds later.

The effect is subtle, and easily missed if you are not paying attention. Both were missed by me, but instantly spotted and commented upon by my daughter. We can tell which disk we are watching by the timing of the defect.

[jmercer]

Definitely a defect in the manufacturing process. DVD's contain a lot more information, so the loss of a few bits can be seen as either skips, freezes, or even artifacts (blots, rectangles, etc.) In CD's the loss of a few bits (for sound storage, not data) isn't usually detectible without equipment. If enough of them are missing, though, it could be perceptible.

Good example.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Seems good to me, except when he wants to listen to them as many times as he wants (months?). Oh, another thing this will be a double blind experiment, right?

Where/when can we expect to read the results? Im really interested, as I have been an "audiophileskeptic" in several audio forums.

[melba]

It doesn't matter if the two original disks are not quite identical. The test is not to tell two disks apart, but to determine which has been "chipped" and which not. The disks are to be randomly chipped by the tester during the testing process.

The surface treatment shouldn't be a problem either--the applicant seems to be saying that ALL disks will get the surface treatment. But only half will be "chipped".

[Metullus]

Originally posted by melba
It doesn't matter if the two original disks are not quite identical. The test is not to tell two disks apart, but to determine which has been "chipped" and which not. The disks are to be randomly chipped by the tester during the testing process.

The surface treatment shouldn't be a problem either--the applicant seems to be saying that ALL disks will get the surface treatment. But only half will be "chipped".

Actually, it is to test whether the chipped disc differs from the unchipped disc. If there is a discernable difference (and I will happily concede JM's greater expertise in this regard) in audio quality to begin with, would that not have an effect on the experimental results? The subject will be comparing the audio quality of the two and determining that disc which he believes in each case is superior.

[Timothy]

A few questions:

Why is this a valid test for the "$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge"? Does the manufacturer claim paranormal effects for the device? (No.) Does the user claim paranormal power? (No.) Simply because James Randi called the device a fraud does not seem sufficient to include it.

The device manufacturer claims that the device improves the sound of a CD. This claim is untestable. The applicant claims that he can detect a difference in "chipped" CDs. That is a *very* different thing.

I can imagine any number of ways that the applicant's own equipment (which he requires for this test) could be rigged to surreptitously "mark" the CD in a way that would be audibly detectable. Remeber, his claim is to only distinguish between two CDs, as opposed to the manufacturer's claim to improve CD sound. Depending on the cleverness, electronics savvy, and skill of the applicant he could ...

... Rig a device inside his CD player that would wipe, spray, tick, scratch, burn, etc. the CD as it rotates during the "chipping" by detecting the presence of a RFID chip, magnet, or weight of the GSID on the player.
... Remote control a marking when he knew the "chipping" was occuring.

I would require the protocol incorporate another level. Two GSIDs are provided, one is used by JREF ref to "chip" 30 CDs (3 x number that should turn off the GSID). CD's need not be identical, simply that they "activate" the device. Now all the test CDs are run through the player with a GSID on top ... one is a fresh one, one the used one.

- Timothy

[jmercer]

Good points and good suggestions, Timothy. :)

Hopefully Kramer's reading this thread - he usually does, but ya never know...

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Timothy
I can imagine any number of ways that the applicant's own equipment (which he requires for this test) could be rigged to surreptitously "mark" the CD in a way that would be audibly detectable. Remeber, his claim is to only distinguish between two CDs, as opposed to the manufacturer's claim to improve CD sound. Depending on the cleverness, electronics savvy, and skill of the applicant he could ...

... Rig a device inside his CD player that would wipe, spray, tick, scratch, burn, etc. the CD as it rotates during the "chipping" by detecting the presence of a RFID chip, magnet, or weight of the GSID on the player.
... Remote control a marking when he knew the "chipping" was occuring.This shouldn't matter. The protocol should be double blind. Even if the applicant could rig something to change a CD, the applicant should be blinded from which CD was being given the treatment. If I knew that a magnet changed a CD's properties and had devices that could detect that, the protocol should be such that I am blinded to which CDs I might be affecting. Same thing with surface treatments. The applicant should be able to do whatever treatments he wants to the CDs, because he should be blinded from either which CDs are given the "magic" treatment.

The guy can provide his own CDs. They can already have whatever clicks or surface treatment or whatever. He can write directly on the things. But when it is time for the "magic" treatment, he leaves the room, the tester puts in the CD, then he can do whatever he wants and his equipment can do whatever, but he can't look at the CD. Then you play the CDs. He can do whatever he wants with the CDs. He cuold tell whether it was a CD that he manipulated, but he shoul dbe totally blind as to whether it was a CD given the "magic" treatment.

[DevilsAdvocate]

At such as I deem appropriate, I will leave my listening seat and place either marker atop the transport. At this time the chosen observors will open the transport door and compare the identifying mark on the disc with the identifying marker I have placed atop the transport. This process will continue until I have made 5 successful identifications within each given session.Of course the identifying mark should not be on the disc where it could be detected by an electronic device. The disc should have only an identifier as to which disk it is. A seperate list blinded to all of the test apparatus would record whether or not that disk was or was not treated. :)

[Timothy]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
The protocol should be double blind. Even if the applicant could rig something to change a CD, the applicant should be blinded from which CD was being given the treatment. If I knew that a magnet changed a CD's properties and had devices that could detect that, the protocol should be such that I am blinded to which CDs I might be affecting. Same thing with surface treatments. The applicant should be able to do whatever treatments he wants to the CDs, because he should be blinded from either which CDs are given the "magic" treatment.


It's not a question of the protocol being double blind, it's a question of the presence of the GSID affecting the CD in a fraudulent way.

Example: All GSIDs may contain a RFID chip for tracking purposes. Surreptitious device inside applicant's CD player constructed to defraud JREF may detect the presence of the GSID on top of the player, and while player spins up, marks the playable side of the CD with a mark that produces an audible tick, click, degradation of sound, etc.

- Timothy

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by Timothy
It's not a question of the protocol being double blind, it's a question of the presence of the GSID affecting the CD in a fraudulent way.

Example: All GSIDs may contain a RFID chip for tracking purposes. Surreptitious device inside applicant's CD player constructed to defraud JREF may detect the presence of the GSID on top of the player, and while player spins up, marks the playable side of the CD with a mark that produces an audible tick, click, degradation of sound, etc.

- Timothy Good point. Really the test is whether or not a GSID affects sound quality of a CD. If the GSID can produce a "degradation of sound" then the GSID really does have an effect, which is the applicants claim. Of course, as you stated, it is possible that the GSID doesn't actually affect the CD, but rather affects a custom made device within the CD player which in turn affects the CD.

So it would, at least, still be a claim that the GSID chip on a CD player in some way affects a CDs sound quality. I'm not mechanically, elictrically, and engineringly qualified to say whether or not that is possible.

If the equipment (which is his own) has anyway of recording the presence of a GSID device and a way of getting thatinformation back to him in any way, then there is fraud here.

[Timothy]

A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION:

Relevant to the GSIC (Golden Sound Intelligent Chip) which I've been mis-acronyming for the last few posts, and other "new technology" devices ...

Without the manufacturer or applicant providing a comprehensive explanation of how a device purports to work, how does JREF detemine whether a new device employs commonly accepted physical principles or is "unexplained" by science?

- Timothy

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Timothy
A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION:

Relevant to the GSIC (Golden Sound Intelligent Chip) which I've been mis-acronyming for the last few posts, and other "new technology" devices ...

Without the manufacturer or applicant providing a comprehensive explanation of how a device purports to work, how does JREF detemine whether a new device employs commonly accepted physical principles or is "unexplained" by science?

- Timothy

In the case of GSIC - given the physical composition of a CD and the technology used to make one work... plus the methodology for supposedly using the GSIC... I'd say that a comprehensive explanation would be moot as far as the prize goes. (Assuming it works, which it won't without fraud involved.)

But any claim that was successfully demonstrated would show either a new physical principles or dimensions of the old ones that were unsuspected... and, of course, once demonstrated, it would become part of the "natural" instead of the supernatural. That's why JREF has a contract - so the demonstration under the rules is enough.

[Drooper]

One interesting thing is that the applicant doesn't seem to be aware of the need for a preliminary test and his test only has odds of 1-1000.

hmmm... wonder if Randi would let me take that test. Considerably better odds than the lottery.

[TheBoyPaj]

Test will be conducted on my primary sound system (the system I have described at Audio Asylum under username Wellfed) located within my residence in Fargo, ND USA.

All accessory products I use within my system are allowed to remain.

Hidden camera? Even within the equipment?

[Rob Lister]

The more I think about it, the more I am convenced that there absolutely must be another setup, one supplied by JREF that matches, to a good degree, the set-up of the applicant. There is no way I can see to do a valid test using a chip with unknown guts. The applicant will of course abstain (and complain greatly in so doing) but that's the only way.

I agree with the other poster that this test should not be allowed insofar as the challenge is concerned. There's nothing paranormal claimed, only trickery and cons.

[Timothy]

Do not be fooled into thinking that it's okay to let this applicant slide on the protocol for the preliminary since the protocol for the formal testing will be more rigorous and that's where JREF needs to exercise the most care. In my opinion, this applicant does not expect to win the challenge. He wants to pass the preliminary. And it's in JREF's best interest to see that the applicant doesn't.

An applicant with sufficiently complex, devious, concealed equipment could use secretive devices intended to defraud in order to pass the preliminary. What would happen then, though?

The protocol for the formal test would have to be agreed upon. The formal test would obviously be designed on JREF's part with everything in mind to circumvent fraud. At this point, it's not the monetary value of the prize that is as important to JREF as its reputation. So JREF will only agree on a formal test that prevents, in its opinion, all elements of fraud.

This puts the onus on the applicant for the costs of such a test. Suppose that the applicant does pass the preliminary and becomes a claimant. I would doubt that JREF would *ever* approve of a formal test conducted in his house. From where would the audio equipment come? His original equipment? (JREF would insist upon opening and dissecting it to detect any fraudulent device.) Would the claimant agree? Would new audio equipment be bought? It's clearly stated that all costs are borne by the claimant. I could see endless negotiations where a formal testing protocol would not be agreed upon. Who wins? The claimant gets publicity, strings things along forever, claims that JREF is not negotiating in good faith, insists that JREF is being unreasonable by making *him* buy all new equipment, claims that he's close to passing and JREF is waffling to avoid inevitably paying up, touts his preliminary win, and all the while sells GSICs to the gullible. What does JREF get out of it? Almost nothing.

This applicant needs to be monitored extremely closely.

- Timothy

[Timothy]

Originally posted by jmercer
In the case of GSIC - given the physical composition of a CD and the technology used to make one work... plus the methodology for supposedly using the GSIC... I'd say that a comprehensive explanation would be moot as far as the prize goes.

But I haven't seen any documentation that claims how it works. What I'm suggesting is that an explanation is required, not for the prize, but to be considered as an applicant.

Is it impossible that a device, sitting on top of a CD player can do what is claimed? No. There is nothing *physically* impossible about a device that can read the entire contents of the disc using sophisticated X-ray interferometric imaging techniques, and then using the same X-ray sources in interfering coherent waves slightly reform the pits of the CD to improve its sound. Do I think it can be done presently with a little plastic doohicky? No. Do I think it's what he's claiming? No. But without an explanation of the proposed method of how it works, you *can't* say that it's violating a physical principle.

As I come to think of it, I believe he can do what his application says. He can with his own equipment, perform the demonstration. So what if there are surreptitious camera, devices, etc. that allow him to detect a difference in a CD? His application never says that he won't do such a thing. Without him explaining that the chip employs a heretofore unknown physical principle, what his application really says is, "I am going to perform a magic trick for you."

- Timothy

[TjW]

Originally posted by melba
It doesn't matter if the two original disks are not quite identical. The test is not to tell two disks apart, but to determine which has been "chipped" and which not. The disks are to be randomly chipped by the tester during the testing process.

The surface treatment shouldn't be a problem either--the applicant seems to be saying that ALL disks will get the surface treatment. But only half will be "chipped".

I think the surface treatment IS a problem, and should not be allowed.
The coating is almost certain to be non-uniform, possibly creating a difference between the disks. He doesn't have to hear something better, just something different.

TjW

[TheBoyPaj]

TjW, this really doesn't matter. Imagine if we took this to extremes, and used completely different CDs. Say, a copy of William Shatner's "The Transformed Man" and a copy of Leonard Nimoy's "Spock Sings".
The difference between these two recordings, ghastly though they both are, would be clear to even casual listeners.

But, when the process of "chipping" is done to one of these musical travesties, the Audiophile-expert is not present. He doesn't know whether it was Shatner's hammy acting or Nimoy's earnest reworkings which was exposed to the magic of the chip.

So it doesn't matter if he can tell the difference. he's still got a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

It all depends on successfully hiding the identity of the "chipped" recording.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Timothy
But I haven't seen any documentation that claims how it works. What I'm suggesting is that an explanation is required, not for the prize, but to be considered as an applicant.

Is it impossible that a device, sitting on top of a CD player can do what is claimed? No. There is nothing *physically* impossible about a device that can read the entire contents of the disc using sophisticated X-ray interferometric imaging techniques, and then using the same X-ray sources in interfering coherent waves slightly reform the pits of the CD to improve its sound. Do I think it can be done presently with a little plastic doohicky? No. Do I think it's what he's claiming? No. But without an explanation of the proposed method of how it works, you *can't* say that it's violating a physical principle.

As I come to think of it, I believe he can do what his application says. He can with his own equipment, perform the demonstration. So what if there are surreptitious camera, devices, etc. that allow him to detect a difference in a CD? His application never says that he won't do such a thing. Without him explaining that the chip employs a heretofore unknown physical principle, what his application really says is, "I am going to perform a magic trick for you."

- Timothy

You seem to think this claimant is out to defraud the JREF. I believe the opposite. I think this claimant actually believes his claim, and he is going to be uncomprehending and distraught when he fails the test.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Fargo, huh? :) I hope they at least audio tape the session. The funny accents will add to the entertainment value of the test.

[TjW]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj

<snippage>

So it doesn't matter if he can tell the difference. he's still got a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

It all depends on successfully hiding the identity of the "chipped" recording.

If he can reliably differentiate the CDs, then his odds become even instead of a thousand to 1. Just always pick 'A'.

If different pairs are used for each of the ten trials, then I agree he's no better off.

TjW

[IXP]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
You seem to think this claimant is out to defraud the JREF. I believe the opposite. I think this claimant actually believes his claim, and he is going to be uncomprehending and distraught when he fails the test.

There is one way to find out. Propose a protocol in which the disc is "chipped" on another CD player provided by JREF to which he has no access. If he agrees to this, then he is not using one of the methods mentioned to mark the "chipped" CD. He would be allowed to do an open test on the CDs (where he knows which is which) to verify the the alternate equipment is working properly and he can detect the difference.

I agree with the fraud theory:

Detecting the GSIC on top of the player is trivial -- a photocell will do just fine. Adding something to the CD player to mark it is a little more difficult but not outside the reach of a home electronics and electromechanical experimenter. All that is needed is a binary marking which can later be detected. Then, when you play back the CDs use electronics to detect whether or not the CD is marked, and if NOT place something in the path that degrades the sound. This way, the JREF observers, to their amazement, would hear the difference as well!

(edited for spelling)

IXP

[IXP]

Another comment on the nature of CD sound encoding.

CDs, as was already mentioned are encoded with binary information, i.e. the level of the audio waveform is sampled about 44000 times per second and recorded as a binary number. Someone stated that losing a few bits would not be detectable but this is not true. Changing low order bits in the binary number would not be detectable, but changing a high order bit would sound as as click if it were allowed through to the audio. CDs incorporate redunant information and error detection and correction techniques to prevent this. When a CD is not readable, it blanks the audio, as you have probably experienced. I suspect that if you were to capture the binary stream fed from the CD player to the digital-to-analog converter from two undamaged CDs they would be identical.

All of this, of couse, makes the premise of the device absurd. The only way to affect the sound of an CD would be to alter the bits.

IXP

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by IXP
There is one way to find out. Propose a protocol in which the disc is "chipped" on another CD player provided by JREF to which he has no access. If he agrees to this, then he is not using one of the methods mentioned to mark the "chipped" CD.

I agree. But we have to remember that he probably have an ultra expensive transport coupled to an ultra expensive digital/analog converter.

Maybe thats the whole reason he wants to use his equipment, because "it is perfectly transparent and accurate". :rolleyes: hard core audiophiles think that way.

[Winterfrost]

- He should not be able to examine the discs, thereby eliminating any chance he is making an identification through signs of handling or any other kind of visual marking (caused by the Treater).

- The Treater should be eliminated entirely, if possible, as we don't know if the chip and Treater could be reacting in some way. The test is for the chip only. (Paranoid, maybe, but it's one less variable.)

- The chipping must be done in a separate CD player, supplied by JREF to avoid possible rigging of his home equipment.

- The chipping must be done under concealment to avoid possible hidden cameras. Alternatively, it could be done off-site, but then he would have to supply a witness and the "integrity" of the disks during transport might come up for question...


For the record, I don't think this is a scam. I think that he will be surprised when he can't identify the disks. But he must be hearing a significant difference if he has the confidence to say he can identify 10 disks without error!

Mind you, dowsers have shown that same confidence...

[KRAMER]

I must disagree with some who feel that this applicant is out to defraud the JREF. He is definitely an honest cat who truly believes that this little chip works wonders. I have just spoken with him via telephone, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that he isn't wholly confident of his ability to prove his claim. He is courteous and polite. No red flags anywhere, so far as I can see.

But of course the protrocol needs work. For one thing, using his own system in his own home seems like a bad thing to do. The "coating" process seems to be another point that needs to be thrown out. Yes, there is much to be done here, but I have a funny feeling that this claim WILL be tested, eventually.

[jmercer]

If he won't throw out the coating process, have ALL of them coated. :)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by TjW
I think the surface treatment IS a problem, and should not be allowed.
The coating is almost certain to be non-uniform, possibly creating a difference between the disks. He doesn't have to hear something better, just something different.

TjW

I am the applicant for this Challenge and this is a concern of mine as well. I am not really hung up on this point as much as I am concerned about uniformity of treatment. Presumably one of the things Walker Vivid does is to remove "mold release agent" from the disc. I would like two uniform discs with the only difference between the two being the GSIC treatment.

[KRAMER]

Welcome to the forum, friend.

You'll find much interest and good advice here that will hopefully lead us to a timely testing of your claim.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
Fargo, huh? :) I hope they at least audio tape the session. The funny accents will add to the entertainment value of the test.

Ya, you betcha ;)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Welcome to the forum, friend.

You'll find much interest and good advice here that will hopefully lead us to a timely testing of your claim.

Thank you KRAMER. My highest hope (besides the prize money of course ;)) is that all of this can be done in a enjoyable and non-adversarial manner. I greatly appreciate your attitude.


Sheesh there are a lot of skeptics around here! ;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Sheesh there are a lot of skeptics around here! ;)

hehe, just a few :p and also some audiophiles, Im sure. In any case, it is wonderful to see people wanted to make decent tests, instead of just believing that skeptics are simply "blind", or something like that.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
hehe, just a few :p and also some audiophiles, Im sure. In any case, it is wonderful to see people wanted to make decent tests, instead of just believing that skeptics are simply "blind", or something like that.

I believe that anyone willing to make a claim should be willing to back it up and I hope this exercise proves fun for everyone involved. I see a big difference between skeptics and cynics. Skeptics are good company, cynics OTOH, well let's just say...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I believe that anyone willing to make a claim should be willing to back it up and I hope this exercise proves fun for everyone involved. I see a big difference between skeptics and cynics. Skeptics are good company, cynics OTOH, well let's just say...

Cant agree more. Welcome to the forum.

[jmercer]

Yeppers, welcome to the forum! I have to say that your application is one of the rare ones that sound serious and read logically. Good luck with your application. :)

And hey - as long as I'm funny when I'm being cynical... ;)

[Wellfed]

I truly appreciate the welcome I've received here. Any assistance I obtain in establishing a test protocol will be greatly appreciated as well.

[Humanists Harbor]

Wellfed, thanks for being the first normal human being to apply in quite a while. Quick question for you - have you conducted any double blind tests on your own?


Originally posted by Wellfed
I truly appreciate the welcome I've received here. Any assistance I obtain in establishing a test protocol will be greatly appreciated as well.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Thank you KRAMER. My highest hope (besides the prize money of course ;)) is that all of this can be done in a enjoyable and non-adversarial manner.

Well, the application and testing process is by its very nature adversarial.

But there's nothing that says adversaries can't be polite.


Sheesh there are a lot of skeptics around here! ;)

It's what we do.


- Timothy

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Humanists Harbor
Wellfed, thanks for being the first normal human being to apply in quite a while. Quick question for you - have you conducted any double blind tests on your own?

How many "normal human beings" claim paranormal ability? ;)

I went to a bank to have my application notarized and they couldn't quite figure out the right location for the notary signature so they went to the website to take a look at the form. The conversation with the notary was a little more subdued after that. :)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by jmercer
Yeppers, welcome to the forum! I have to say that your application is one of the rare ones that sound serious and read logically. Good luck with your application. :)

And hey - as long as I'm funny when I'm being cynical... ;)


jmercer,

Thanks for your welcome and well wishes.

BTW, cynical humor is still cynical, isn't it. :teacher:

[edthedoc]

Wellfed, thanks for contributint to this crocodile pit!

One question: have you actually done a simple double blind trial yourself?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Wellfed
jmercer,

BTW, cynical humor is still cynical, isn't it. :teacher:

One can only hope... ;)

[Orangutan]

Hello Wellfed and welcome.

I was wondering, can the treatment you'd like be applied after the CD has had been "chiped" ?

I think that would alleviate some concerns about it as it would be left up to you to do whatever you want to determine which CD had been chipped at that point?

My concern is that you would recieve some clues, perhaps even subconsciously, as to which CD was handled by the person doing the chipping. I think that's why others are saying all CDs would have to be played, just so all CD's go through the same process (apart from the chipping of course).

O.
:)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by edthedoc
...One question: have you actually done a simple double blind trial yourself?

Reiterating this question.

Have a friend help you. Mark them so that neither you nor your friend knows which is being tested at the time.

It would be very interesting if you passed the preliminary challenge, but your own pre-test may spare you some embarassment if it shows what I think it might.

Have you actually done a simple double blind trial yourself?

[IXP]

Hello Wellfed, and welcome.

I am curious if you have a theory about how this "chipping" mechanism affects the sound on the CD. I can see three possiblities:

1. It changes the actual digital encoding.

2. It reduces errors in reading unchanged digital data.

3. The stream of digital data is no different from the non-chipped disc, but the sound is still different.


If 1 or 2, these can be tested by capturing the digital output on a CD player that has this capability and no subjective listening test is needed. If 3, I would say that this is truly a paranormal claim.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

IXP

[Gr8wight]

Re: the protocol negotiations ongoing here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53824).

I agree with the suggestion earlier in this thread that different cds be used for each of the 10 trials during the test. If only one cd is used, and for some reason there is a difference between the sound of them, the result will be either 100% correct, or 0% correct. Using multiple discs will reduce the possibility of running into this.

I also agree with wellfed's amusement at the conspiracy theories being thrown around here (hidden cameras, modified cd transports designed to audibly 'mark' one of the cds). This gentleman is an audiophile. He would definitely never think of messing with the innards of the cd player he uses to partake of his passionate enjoyment of his music.

I find the suggestion that something could be put into the cd player to electronically detect the GSIC (or whatever you call it) silly. Isn't it our contention that there is nothing electronic or otherwise actually in the 'chip?'

[Wellfed]

Thanks for the additional words of welcome.

I haven't done any serious DBT tests. I didn't want to expend the effort until I knew for sure that the device was eligible for testing under the Challenge.

IXP, my guess is that scenario #2 provides the explanation.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
...I agree with the suggestion earlier in this thread that different cds be used for each of the 10 trials during the test. If only one cd is used, and for some reason there is a difference between the sound of them, the result will be either 100% correct, or 0% correct. Using multiple discs will reduce the possibility of running into this...

I will be testing for "different", not better. I am trying to eliminate every possible variable I can think of.

[TjW]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I will be testing for "different", not better. I am trying to eliminate every possible variable I can think of.

If you're only going to use two identical discs, then you should definitely skip any surface treatments.

CDs use error correction -- A Reed-Solomon code, I think, but it doesn't matter. There are about four times as many bits on the disc than are necessary for the audio encoding. Those redundant bits encode information about the audio bits and the other redundant bits in such a way that even with a few of them missing, you can reconstruct the missing bits This is why a little speck of dust or a minor scratch that's radial to the disc doesn't become a major problem. You lose a bit or two at widely separated places , the error correction code reconstructs the original data, no problem.
However, error correction does have limits. Lose enough bits, and you can no longer perfectly reconstruct the data. So a concentric scratch can take out enough bits close together to cause a real problem.
Now, conceivably (and I'm not claiming that it does, merely that it could), a surface treatment could add a non-uniform optical layer to the disc, diffracting the read laser, and losing bits. If it misses enough bits, the CD player can't perfectly reconstruct the data. I'm sure the CD player manufacturers try to make a missing sample as unobtrusive as possible, but if the data for a sample has been destroyed, then you can only guess at what it might have been, so the output waveform is going to be different.

Would you agree that two identical data streams played on the same audio system would sound the same?

If not, why would the same CD sound the same on two different playings?

If so, then you may be able to eliminate the manufacturing process, yourself and your sound system as variables.
Use CD ripping software and rip the image of a CD to file0.
Rename file0 to file1.
Rip the image of the same CD to file0 again.
Rename file0 to file2.
Compare file1 to file2. If the error correction worked, the files should be identical. If they're not, then this test scheme won't work.
Now apply whatever it is you're testing (surface treatment or enhancement chip) to the same disc. Rip it to file0. Rename it to file3. Compare file3 to file1 and file2.
If it's identical, then the applied process didn't actually affect the samples provided to the D/A converter.
If it's not identical, the applied process managed to destroy enough bits that the error correction failed., so you may indeed hear a difference, and I don't think anyone here will argue that it's not possible. Different data, different sound. No question.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by TjW
Different data, different sound. No question.

I dont think is that simple, how different? 99.5%? 88%? there most be some threshold. For example, when you rip a CD to MP3 the data is different, yet, a good encoding could be very difficult to detect by just hearing.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I dont think is that simple, how different? 99.5%? 88%? there most be some threshold. For example, when you rip a CD to MP3 the data is different, yet, a good encoding could be very difficult to detect by just hearing.

When you rip, the dataloss is algorithmically even, making it difficult to determine what's missing. And the better the algorithm, the less the loss is detectable - because good music compression algorithms target areas that can be "dropped" with a minimum of impact. (Or so the designers think. :))

Randomized loss, OTOH, could have a dramatic effect. It could sound like a skip... or a particular instrument might drop out for a moment, or waver or even go off-note. I have no idea what the threshold is for a human to detect these variances, but consider that a good conductor can often detect a brief flat note from a particular musician in an orchestra.

[TjW]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I dont think is that simple, how different? 99.5%? 88%? there most be some threshold. For example, when you rip a CD to MP3 the data is different, yet, a good encoding could be very difficult to detect by just hearing.

A CD image should be just that, an image of the data on the disc, complete with all the overhead of track times and so forth. If my understanding of rip programs is incorrect, then the first two files won't be identical, and the scheme is then not a good test. This could be because of the rip program, and not necessarily because of a change in the data.

I don't particularly want to argue about what the minimum perceptible difference could or should be. But an identical data stream is just that -- identical.

This is not like an analog signal, where it's possible to argue that the effect is too subtle for the most sophisticated equipment to measure, it can only be detected by human ears. In this case, the signal has _already_ been measured, and the data stream is the record of those measurements. If it can't be measured to 1 part in 65536, then it wasn't on the disc to begin with. You can't have less than a least-significant-bit change. That's as subtle as it can get. When the bit gets to the DAC, it's either a 0 or a 1.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Orangutan
...I was wondering, can the treatment you'd like be applied after the CD has had been "chiped" ?...

Yes, the disc can be treated with Vivid or some other treatment product after the GSIC application.

[TjW]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
I dont think is that simple, how different? 99.5%? 88%? there most be some threshold. For example, when you rip a CD to MP3 the data is different, yet, a good encoding could be very difficult to detect by just hearing.

A CD image should be just that, an image of the data on the disc, complete with all the overhead of track times and so forth. If my understanding of rip programs is incorrect, then the first two files won't be identical, and the scheme is then not a good test. This could be because of the rip program, and not necessarily because of a change in the data.

I don't particularly want to argue about what the minimum perceptible difference could or should be. But an identical data stream is just that -- identical.

This is not like an analog signal, where it's possible to argue that the effect is too subtle for the most sophisticated equipment to measure, it can only be detected by human ears. In this case, the signal has _already_ been measured, and the data stream is the record of those measurements. If it can't be measured to 1 part in 65536, then it wasn't on the disc to begin with. You can't have less than a least-significant-bit change. That's as subtle as it can get. When the bit gets to the DAC, it's either a 0 or a 1.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by TjW
A CD image should be just that, an image of the data on the disc, complete with all the overhead of track times and so forth. If my understanding of rip programs is incorrect, then the first two files won't be identical, and the scheme is then not a good test. This could be because of the rip program, and not necessarily because of a change in the data.

I don't particularly want to argue about what the minimum perceptible difference could or should be. But an identical data stream is just that -- identical.

This is not like an analog signal, where it's possible to argue that the effect is too subtle for the most sophisticated equipment to measure, it can only be detected by human ears. In this case, the signal has _already_ been measured, and the data stream is the record of those measurements. If it can't be measured to 1 part in 65536, then it wasn't on the disc to begin with. You can't have less than a least-significant-bit change. That's as subtle as it can get. When the bit gets to the DAC, it's either a 0 or a 1. Just curious here. What makes one CD player better than another? If they read the same 1s and 0s, would that mean the difference is in the way the data is output to the other audio components? Is it possible for one CD player to be "better" at reading 1s and 0s than another that would improve sound quality? (I already know that CD players can be "better" at reading 1s and 0s because the cheap CD drive at work will start to skip if there is even the slightest smudge on the disk. Never have that problem with the same disks at home. I can't say whether the is any sound quality difference because I use different headphones, PCs, etc.).

[TjW]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Just curious here. What makes one CD player better than another? If they read the same 1s and 0s, would that mean the difference is in the way the data is output to the other audio components? Is it possible for one CD player to be "better" at reading 1s and 0s than another that would improve sound quality? (I already know that CD players can be "better" at reading 1s and 0s because the cheap CD drive at work will start to skip if there is even the slightest smudge on the disk. Never have that problem with the same disks at home. I can't say whether the is any sound quality difference because I use different headphones, PCs, etc.).

Well, the digital to analog converter can have a big effect, of course. There's usually a low-pass "reconstruction" filter after the D/A converter (Sampling at 44.1 KHz means you can only theoretically reproduce up to 22.05 Khz ), and maybe a buffer amp to bring the analog signal up to line levels.
All of these are opportunities to add noise and distortion. The correct digital data is as accurate as the representation of the signal on the CD is going to get. It's all downhill from there, the only question is, how fast or slowly?
Reading the bits better will help up to the point where all the audio bits are correct after applying the error correction. After you've got the same data you laid down, that's as good as you can do. The DAC doesn't know or care whether the data got corrected.
But certainly there are things on the CD player that affect how well the data on the CD is reproduced as an analog signal.

The thing I don't understand about devices to "improve CDs" is where are they getting the additional information to improve the reproduction? The sixteen bits per sample is all there is on the CD. Any change in that data would simply be a distortion of the previously-made measurements.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by TjW
good stuff Thanks. Hey, is the sound quality from a particular part of a CD always the same? Assuming you use the same system to play it. With vinyl, as records got old and used you would loose sound quality and get static or get a sort of "blurry" sound. Same thing happened with cassettes--they would get wornand scrathed and not sound as good. But with a CD I would think it would always be the same. CDs can get worn with scrathes and smudges which can cause clicks and jumps, but I have never noticed a difference in sound quality in the parts of the CD that play correctly. With CDs it seems to be an all or nothing deal: either you get exactly the same sound, or you don't--which would mean clicks or jumps. So from a CD you can't really get an overall "better" or "worse" sound like you could from vinyl. Is that thechnically correct?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by TjW
*snip*
The thing I don't understand about devices to "improve CDs" is where are they getting the additional information to improve the reproduction? The sixteen bits per sample is all there is on the CD. Any change in that data would simply be a distortion of the previously-made measurements. There in no way to improve the signal ON the CD. That is the reason this is a paranormal claim.

The only scope for improvement that exists is to improve the reading accuracy of the CD player, and this can be tested technically. Simply obtain the exact bit pattern on the CD, and compare the bitstream read by the CD player (requires some tampering). Equipment exists that can compare two bitstreams and display the difference. This would do away with all the listening nonsense.

A modern CD player should be very precise and have little scope for improvement (remember that we have CD-ROM readers that can read at more than 50 times the speed of a music CD, so the technology is VERY mature), but the only possible non-paranormal way of improvement is some kind of surface treatment.

Placing ANY gadget near to a CD, can ONLY work through paranormal means. Sorry to be so cynical here, but as I mentioned in another tread, this "chip" claim equals claiming to change the content (or readability) of a printed book by placing a device on top of the shelf.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Uhhh, and Wellfed: May I strongly advice you to do a blind test in private. It might save you some embarassment.


......And the JREF some time ;).

Just being cynical.

Try to think this cynical thought: The music business is very competitive. If a method existed to improve CDs, can you think of ANY reason manufacturers wouldn't be using it?

Hans

[DevilsAdvocate]

I still would like to hear TjWs opinon on whether or not a CD can have "reduced quality" or if it is an all or nothing case where you get the same sound and a bad CD can only produce things like skips and clicks. I simply don't see the sound quality of any CD could be worse or better than any other, with the exception of clicks or skips. But I'm no expert on these things.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
I still would like to hear TjWs opinon on whether or not a CD can have "reduced quality" or if it is an all or nothing case where you get the same sound and a bad CD can only produce things like skips and clicks. I simply don't see the sound quality of any CD could be worse or better than any other, with the exception of clicks or skips. But I'm no expert on these things. Well, you can have mine: On a CD (be it a music CD or a CD-ROM) is a pattern of bits, etched into a very thin metal layer. In effect the bits are represented by holes in the layer. A bit is either 1 or 0. A Cd player shines a laser-beam at the metal layer and depending on the way light is reflected, it determines whether each spot is a 1 or a 0.

Then, of course, there is a protocol for aligning and format, but the short story is that we obtain a tstream of numbers from the CD. Each number can be either right or wrong. If it was for some reason read incorectly, it may be wrong. Since there is a system of data reduncancy on the CD, the recovery software can correct for single wrong numbers (this is an old and well-known thechnique in electronic communication).

Numbers can be misread from the CD for a number of reasons:

- There can be faults in the etching. Especially with writable CDs, this is a problem.

- There can be scratches in the surface of the CD. Now, the bottom surface of the CD (non-label side) is the side from where it is read, but if you examine a CD, you wil lsee that it has a certain thickness, and that the metallic layer is really on the other side, right under the label. The laser optics focus through this transparant layer on the metal layer, and this means that scratches and dirt on the bottom of the CD are out of focus, making it surprisingly tolerant to scratches, dirt, fingerprints, etc.

The CD can deteriorate with time in various ways:

- The metal layer can be broken down by oxidation, delamination, and various other physical/chemical processes.

- The clear body of the CD can become opaque, due again to chemical and physical changes (espcially after exposure to heat and/or sunlight).

- The bottom surface can become scratched or contaminated.

In all cases of deterioration, the result will be an increased incidence of misread numbers. When reading faults occur, the correction software tries the following:

1) It tries to recalculate the number using the redundant information on the disk.

2) Failing #1, it tries to interpolate between good readings.

#2 can result in deteriorating sound, but not necessarily in audible skips.

So in conclusion: Poor reading accuracy on a CD might present as deteriorated sound quality.

Hans

[TjW]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
Thanks. Hey, is the sound quality from a particular part of a CD always the same? Assuming you use the same system to play it. With vinyl, as records got old and used you would loose sound quality and get static or get a sort of "blurry" sound. Same thing happened with cassettes--they would get wornand scrathed and not sound as good. But with a CD I would think it would always be the same. CDs can get worn with scrathes and smudges which can cause clicks and jumps, but I have never noticed a difference in sound quality in the parts of the CD that play correctly. With CDs it seems to be an all or nothing deal: either you get exactly the same sound, or you don't--which would mean clicks or jumps. So from a CD you can't really get an overall "better" or "worse" sound like you could from vinyl. Is that thechnically correct?

It should be, unless something physically changes it enough to overcome the error correction. Since it's a non-contact read, just reading a pressed CD shouldn't affect it at all.

Vinyl and cassettes had to rub the media against something, and that's bound to wear. Although I seem to recall reading about someone building a laser non-contact reader for vinyl.

You don't get a sound at all from CDs, you get data. The data is either correct or it's not. (And because of the error correction, you can tell whether or not it's correct) That data is from a previously-measured waveform, and theoretically, can be used to reproduce the waveform up to the accuracy with which it was measured.
You can never quite get there. The DAC isn't quite linear. The reconstruction filter isn't perfect. there's thermal noise in amplifiers, speakers have a finite slew rate, and so forth and so on. But as a transfer medium, it's good enough that it's all those little details in the reconstruction that are the limiting factor, not the data on the CD.

I wonder if the audiophiles have endless debates over whether something sounds better if it was downloaded over a T1 rather than coming into the computer on a 56K dialup?

[edthedoc]

Wellfed, we are very interested in whether you have conducted your own double blind trial. Please could you answer this question.

[Patricio Elicer]

Hello Wellfed, and welcome to the forums.

From the February 11, 2005 Commentary: The Intelligent Chip automatically upgrades any CD/DVD/SACD disc when the Chip is placed momentarily on the top surface of the player while the disc is playing(bold mine). Is that, in effect, all the treatment needed to change/improve the sound quality?, just to place the chip on top of the player?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by edthedoc
Wellfed, we are very interested in whether you have conducted your own double blind trial. Please could you answer this question.

He has (answered the question) and he hasn't (done the tests).


In reposnse to Gr8Wight:

This gentleman is an audiophile. He would definitely never think of messing with the innards of the cd player he uses to partake of his passionate enjoyment of his music.

He would never think of messing up his CD player? For a million dollars? What sort of sound system could he buy with that?

[IXP]

There has been some discussion about the accuracy of reading data off a CD. Consider this: We read programs off CDs all the time. Changing random bits in a program are likely to have dramatic effects if that piece of code is ever executed. Yet programs read off CDs seem to operate flawlessly (well, as flawlessly as program can.) Reading data from an audio CD should be at least as accurate given that it acutally has more redundancy than data CDs do.

TjW's comments about ripping a CD are right on. Ripping software can recover the exact bitstream from a CD and I would be very surprised if ripping two new CDs did not produce exactly the same image. MP3 encoding has nothing to do with it. The ripping software reads the exact bits, then an algorithm is applied to compress it to MP3 or WMA or whatever.


IXP

[IXP]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Re: the protocol negotiations ongoing here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53824).
I find the suggestion that something could be put into the cd player to electronically detect the GSIC (or whatever you call it) silly. Isn't it our contention that there is nothing electronic or otherwise actually in the 'chip?'
You are not very imaginative then. It is not necessary to detect the GSIC, only to detect that something has been placed on top of the CD player. Here are some suggestions:

1. Placing the CD player on a sensitive electronic scale.
2. Placing an array of infrared LEDs on one side of the player and detectors on the other.
3. Using a camera trained on the top of the player that is monitored by a computer.

I do not think it is likely that this type of fraud is in the works, I am merely trying to point out that the protocol must prevent it. Given his proposed protocol, particularly that the chipping and test occur on his own system, I would gladly accept a challenge to distinguish the discs for a million dollars. This is why I called for doing the chipping on a system provided by the testers.

IXP

[drelda]

Hi,

Theres been lots of discussion here along the lines of "if the bitstream coming out of a CD transport is unchanged then the sound must be unchanged". I don't think this is quite true - the timing of the bits is very important too.

Its true I think that just about any CD transport is capable of accurately reading the bits on a disc (otherwise cheapo CDROM drives wouldn't work!) - but if a CD player delivers those bits with slightly the wrong timing it can make a very audible difference...

Don't misunderstand me - I'm extremely sceptical about this device - but it would be a mistake to fall into the "its digital data so nothing can make a difference" trap.

I must admit I used to wonder if the whole idea of one CD transport being better than another was an audiophile woo - but its easy to test so I did...

I took three CD transports (cheapo games console, cheapo DVD player and reasonably expensive audiophile CD transport) and did several blind tests - ie see if I could determine which was the expensive transport with the only variable being which player was providing the digital signal to a DAC/amp etc (I'm sure my protocol wasn't up to JREF standards but I think it was still sound).

The outcome was that there was a definite difference in the sound between the players and it was reasonably easy to pick out the expensive player - which (subjectively) did sound better.

However the interesting part was that the difference was a lot more subtle than I was expecting - and I think a lot more subtle than the CD transport makers would like to admit! But I was reassured that expensive CD transports are not just woo woo.

What was also interesting about this test was that when I first did it not blind (ie I did the switching of the cables / CDs myself) then I perceived a much bigger difference in the sound! I would have sworn I wasn't fooling myself about that - but its true that 90% of the perceived difference dissapeared when I didn't know which was which.

So to repeat - I'm not at all arguing that this device works (I am very sceptical) - but I am very sympathetic of anyone who becomes convinced an audio tweak makes a big difference without doing a blind test.

regards - Drelda

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, but timing is not critical. A bit is sampled at mid time, ideally. If there is a timming jitter big enough, sampling occurs outside the physical location of the bit and a faulty sample occurs, but this is no different from sampling a wrong logical value(0 or 1) due to a scratch or any other reason.

Once read from the CD, the bitstram is retimed using the internal clock of the player (chrystal controlled to several decimal points).

The difference between cheap and expensive players can be real enough, but it is due to different quality of D/A convertion and filtering. Also fault-correction software might be better on some players. The best portable players have a large memory buffer allowing them to recover long dropouts in the bitstream due to bumps. They simply play from the buffer while the reading head rereads the missing parts.

ans

[drelda]

Sorry, but timing is not critical

Your right - I don't know for sure that its timing issues that make the audible difference between cheap and expensive CD transports - however :

1) I think there is compelling evidence that there is a difference (ie I really did the test).

2) It can't be the DAC in the player thats making the difference - I just used the digital outputs of each device and put them into the same processor (DAC/preamp)

3) It seems reasonable that differences in timing could make a difference - ie the 'if the bits are the same the sound is the same' argument isn't watertight

4) The people that make CD transports do seem to claim that timing/jitter type issues are important?

Given those I was assuming the key difference was timing - but I could be wrong. However I'd be surprised if the cause of the difference is that the cheap players are not delivering the correct bits (ie error correction etc). A cheap CDROM seems to read the correct bits reliably enough - so I've no reason to think the other devices can't?

Or are you saying that there isn't a real difference between the sound produced by different CD transports? I might be up for taking the pepsi challenge on that one myself :).

- Drelda

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by drelda
Your right - I don't know for sure that its timing issues that make the audible difference between cheap and expensive CD transports - however :

1) I think there is compelling evidence that there is a difference (ie I really did the test).

Well, OK.

2) It can't be the DAC in the player thats making the difference - I just used the digital outputs of each device and put them into the same processor (DAC/preamp)

There is still a lot of processing going on, redundancy checks, error correction, etc.

3) It seems reasonable that differences in timing could make a difference - ie the 'if the bits are the same the sound is the same' argument isn't watertight

Even if the digital words are presented at varying times to the DAC, the sample rate is above the audible spectrum. So, jitter in that area is extremely unlikely to be audible.

4) The people that make CD transports do seem to claim that timing/jitter type issues are important?

This are roughly the same people who claim that your 2 inch PC 2 loudspeakers are 120W, right?

*snip*
Or are you saying that there isn't a real difference between the sound produced by different CD transports? I might be up for taking the pepsi challenge on that one myself :).

I don't know.

Hans

[drelda]

There is still a lot of processing going on, redundancy checks, error correction, etc.

Sure - but all that stuff will result in either the data stream being different (in which case CDROM drives wouldn't work reliably?) or the timing being different?

Anyway - I didn't mean to hijak this thread - and I'm not an audiophile or an expert on this stuff so I won't try to argue it.

My main point was how deceptive our perception of audio can be - much more so than visual perception for instance...

- Drelda

[nathan]

My understanding of CD sound reproduction is that the most important part to get right is the low pass filter after digitization. With a 44KHz it has to have a _very_ steep fall off from 22KHz to avoid artefacts (>20dB/octave). Now, IIRC, a steep fall off increases the phase delay of the high frequency components, and that is undesirable in an audio system.

Hence the technique adopted is to resample the 44KHz signal at 8 or 16 times oversampled, feed it through a low resolution DAC and then have a cheaper low pass filter that does not need the steep fall off, because the undesired hig frequency components have been pushed up to 44*8 or 44*16KHz.

The encoding on a CD used 14 physical bits per 8 data bits. This is necessary to avoid runs of more than 3 pits or, er, non-pits (I forget the term for that). Longer runs cause the tracking & focussing mechanism to fail. After then there is a Reed Solomon error correction. I forget what details come next.

It's been over 15years since I new this stuff in detail, so my memory might have rotted a bit.

[Orangutan]

Hi,

I just wanted to post this as it was new information te me. It's probably redundent fo a a buch of people here; I was wondering how I can get error free re-production on my 48X speed CD rom for my computer and not for my 1Xspeed audio CD. It turns out they Do error correction differently, it's a lot less strict for audio as you are allowed to intrpolate.

FAQ link: http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq02.html#S2-17

Like I said I'm sure a lot of you knew this but if it's news to me somebody else was probably wondering too. :)

O.

[IXP]

Originally posted by drelda
Hi,

Theres been lots of discussion here along the lines of "if the bitstream coming out of a CD transport is unchanged then the sound must be unchanged". I don't think this is quite true - the timing of the bits is very important too.

Its true I think that just about any CD transport is capable of accurately reading the bits on a disc (otherwise cheapo CDROM drives wouldn't work!) - but if a CD player delivers those bits with slightly the wrong timing it can make a very audible difference...

Don't misunderstand me - I'm extremely sceptical about this device - but it would be a mistake to fall into the "its digital data so nothing can make a difference" trap.

I must admit I used to wonder if the whole idea of one CD transport being better than another was an audiophile woo - but its easy to test so I did...

I took three CD transports (cheapo games console, cheapo DVD player and reasonably expensive audiophile CD transport) and did several blind tests - ie see if I could determine which was the expensive transport with the only variable being which player was providing the digital signal to a DAC/amp etc (I'm sure my protocol wasn't up to JREF standards but I think it was still sound).

The outcome was that there was a definite difference in the sound between the players and it was reasonably easy to pick out the expensive player - which (subjectively) did sound better.

However the interesting part was that the difference was a lot more subtle than I was expecting - and I think a lot more subtle than the CD transport makers would like to admit! But I was reassured that expensive CD transports are not just woo woo.

What was also interesting about this test was that when I first did it not blind (ie I did the switching of the cables / CDs myself) then I perceived a much bigger difference in the sound! I would have sworn I wasn't fooling myself about that - but its true that 90% of the perceived difference dissapeared when I didn't know which was which.

So to repeat - I'm not at all arguing that this device works (I am very sceptical) - but I am very sympathetic of anyone who becomes convinced an audio tweak makes a big difference without doing a blind test.

regards - Drelda

You are assuming that the bitstream was the same, but you did not test this. I can see a cheap player taking a short-cut on the digital out by sending fewer than the full 16 bits or by perhaps even by skipping every other sample and duplicating them (which means it can run at lower frequencies). I think this is more likely than the timing being wrong. An even more likely possibility is signal quality on the digital output: if one player has more noise in the signal, the DAC would likely make more errors in reading the bits.

IXP

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Is this the JREF or an audiophile discussion forum?!? :D Anyway, the point is not if "the information" is different from one DAC to the other, if jitter is or not a problem, if the format is the redhat or mp3, nor anything along those lines.

The question is if those differences are distinguishable. One can argue that a "good" transport coupled with "good" interconects to a "good" DAC will do a superior job concerning the 0's and 1's.

However, if one cant discern (with a proper double blind listening test) between that system and a simple Sony CDP with analog outs, everything else become irrelevant.

[TjW]

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
I still would like to hear TjWs opinon on whether or not a CD can have "reduced quality" or if it is an all or nothing case where you get the same sound and a bad CD can only produce things like skips and clicks. I simply don't see the sound quality of any CD could be worse or better than any other, with the exception of clicks or skips. But I'm no expert on these things.

Hmm. I thought I was pretty clear that the data was either right (and known to be right) or wrong (and known to be wrong), so I think we're pretty much in agreement.
Given that information, different CD _readers_ might do different things given a bad sample. It could just output the bad sample, which would probably give a pop. It could output the last known good sample. If it had any read-ahead, it could interpolate the missing code from the last and next known-good samples.

This last possibility would give "reduced quality" over that section of the disc where the interpolation was taking place, but it would be an effect of the reader, not the CD.

All that said, I'm not an expert on CDs either. But all this stuff is verifiable with Google and a little interest.

[TjW]

Originally posted by drelda
Hi,

Theres been lots of discussion here along the lines of "if the bitstream coming out of a CD transport is unchanged then the sound must be unchanged". I don't think this is quite true - the timing of the bits is very important too.

<snippage of tests he did>

regards - Drelda

Timing for the reconstruction is supplied by the device reading the CD, not the disc itself.
I would argue that if the timing/jitter characteristics of a reader change audibly from play to play of the same unmodifed disc, then that reader is broken.

[Robaato]

I'm a little bit confused. Earlier in this thread, KRAMER stated that the coating process is a point that "needs to be thrown out." Yet, in his latest post in the Challenge Applications forum, he states that Mr. Anda "can treat the discs" if he likes.

I am of the opinion that this introduces another variable, and should be tossed. I don't think there's any way one can guarantee that the application of Vivid (or any other treatment) will be identical on both discs, and (if it works as Mr. Anda says it does) it could produce an audible difference between discs.

My 2 cents...

[Patricio Elicer]

Posted by KRAMER in response to a Mr Anda's letter
Also of no matter is the Walker Vivid issue. Treat the discs as you like.I don't think it's a good idea to leave the door open to any kind of treatement.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by IXP

TjW's comments about ripping a CD are right on. Ripping software can recover the exact bitstream from a CD and I would be very surprised if ripping two new CDs did not produce exactly the same image. MP3 encoding has nothing to do with it. The ripping software reads the exact bits, then an algorithm is applied to compress it to MP3 or WMA or whatever.


IXP

Theoretically correct, but not necessarily true in reality. People are continually tinkering with (and changing) compression algorithms in search of ever-more-efficient ways of compressing information without losing any. In a perfect world, these algorithms would never drop data that couldn't be recovered.

In a perfect world. :) The reality is that while these algorithms are extremely reliable, they're not perfect.

Also, this discussion has been based on the assertion that the 1's and 0's are either there or not on the CD disk... there's also the possibly that a damaged disk may not simply result in missing bits, but would instead result in "flipped" bits.

In example, a disk could be damaged in a way that "closed" a bit while leaving a hole that appeared to "open" a bit.

[KRAMER]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by KRAMER in response to a Mr Anda's letter

Also of no matter is the Walker Vivid issue. Treat the discs as you like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randi and I disagree strongly on this. I want no treatment of the discs other than the application of the chip. Randi insists it's OK.

I'd have liked to toss everything that isn't mutually agreed to as absolutely necessary, but Randi wants the applicant to have all possible comforts. I can see why, but it still bugs me.

All this may be rendered moot, however, as the applicant has just advised me that he wishes to avoid "notoriety" until after his high school reunion this coming August.

See the Applications thread for our latest correspondence.

And I really thought we'd be seeing a test soon. Wrong again.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
quote:...All this may be rendered moot, however, as the applicant has just advised me that he wishes to avoid "notoriety" until after his high school reunion this coming August...

Kramer, this isn't something I've insisted upon. It was simply a request. I really don't have any idea how much time the preliminaries to this will take.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by KRAMER
All this may be rendered moot, however, as the applicant has just advised me that he wishes to avoid "notoriety" until after his high school reunion this coming August.

I can quite imagine how incredibly he would be inconvenienced by the legions of news reporters who would flock to his doorstep after his successful completion of the challenge.

The thought itself is enough to scare one out of any desire to win a million dollars. :rolleyes:

Kramer, your handling of this case has been very professional and exemplary and you need to be commended on that.

[Randi]

Re the CD test.... I think many of you have the wrong idea of how the test would be run.

Experimenters: "C" and "D."

The preparation: We would buy two identical CDs of the subject's choice. We'd label them respectively "A" and "B" with a soft marker. We would next use the magic "chip" thing on ONE of them, without our knowing which one it was, but recording that choice -- for example -- by putting the treated CD marked-side down on a Xerox machine, making an image of it, but not LOOKING at the image, sealing the resulting sheet of paper up in an envelope. We'd place each of the 2 CDs in envelopes, mix them up thoroughly.

We'd then have 2 CDs, one of which has been magically treated. All anyone would know about them would be that they were marked "A" and "B" and one of those was "treated," the other not.

Test: subject out of the room, "A" or "B" is randomly selected -- tossing a coin is sufficient -- by one of the testers -- C. That selectd CD (A or B) is recorded on the data sheet by C -- unseen by D -- as being used for test #1, and it's placed into the player by C. Now, C is the only one who knows which of the 2 CDs is in the machine. C leaves the test room, takes data sheet with him. Subject called back into the room, with only D and himself present.

The CD is played, any number of times. The subject records on another data sheet which one he thinks it is. He then leaves the room again.

C is called back into the room, removes the CD from the player without showing it to D, replaces it in its envelope. Both envelopes are mixed, one selected randomly, it's recorded on C's data sheet by him as the one chosen, that one opened and the CD (A or B) is placed into player by C.

Subject called back into room, test #2 performed....

Repeat ad nauseam....

This business about 2 markers, I don't understand. If no one -- that's NO ONE -- knows which CD was treated, and only C knows whether A or B has been chosen to be played in any of the tests, the test is tight.

Let's work from that base.

Randi.

(PLEASE deal with Kramer on this from here on in, okay! Thanks.)

[alfaniner]

So basically it's "This year's not good for me." I think I'd WANT to attend a high school reunion being able to say I just won a million dollars. But if he failed the test, word-of-mouth anomg his classmates would probably not be that high anyway.

There was also something he forgot about a CD mat. How many other "Oh, by the way"s do you think there will be?

That being said, this one does seem to really want to do the test the right way.

Aside from the test, I'd have to ask him if he "warms up" his system every time he puts a CD in. Me, I just place & play.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by KRAMER
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by KRAMER in response to a Mr Anda's letter

Also of no matter is the Walker Vivid issue. Treat the discs as you like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randi and I disagree strongly on this. I want no treatment of the discs other than the application of the chip. Randi insists it's OK.

I'd have liked to toss everything that isn't mutually agreed to as absolutely necessary, but Randi wants the applicant to have all possible comforts. I can see why, but it still bugs me.

All this may be rendered moot, however, as the applicant has just advised me that he wishes to avoid "notoriety" until after his high school reunion this coming August.

See the Applications thread for our latest correspondence.

And I really thought we'd be seeing a test soon. Wrong again.

Kramer:
It seems simple to this idiot Injuneer:
The testee and an impartial observer go to the store and buy 4 "identical" CD's
They return to the test site. Testee coats all in the manner he wishes. They are now handed to an new pair of observers.
These label the cd's 1 ,2, 3, qnd 4.
One or more are "chipped". Which one(s) is denoted in a sealed envelope. Observers place CD's in cases, set them on a table. They hand the envelope to the judges, and leave without contact with testee and testor--who are elsewhere.
testor comes into room with testee. testee takes his seat.
CD's are played. Testee marks each song "Chipped" or "unchipped" on a sheet. Testor marks which disk and track is played in what order on a separate sheet.
Answers are compared with the sealed envelope. Either he can, or he can't.
Limiting the choices to one chipped and one unchipped is NOT a good test. I have bought a CD and played it, then my wife gave me the same one as a gift--and I could tell differences between the two. They were obscure, and minor.
Allowing "pre-play" of theCD's allows these differences to be noted.

Roger

[Gulliver]

I must admit that I am always humbled by Randi's experimental designs. I guess it's time to put my ego back in my pocket where it belongs anyhow. I will just have to keep learning and teaching what I learn.

Humble Regards,

[jmercer]

Randi's explanation pretty much clears it up for me, and I can see why the coating issue is moot.

Also, I have to echo the earlier poster - Kramer deserves a compliment for his professionalism.

:)

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by rwguinn
...I have bought a CD and played it, then my wife gave me the same one as a gift--and I could tell differences between the two. They were obscure, and minor.
Allowing "pre-play" of theCD's allows these differences to be noted...

Roger

I wouldn't know which of the two discs had been treated with the GSIC during the pre-play. Perhaps it wouldn't be treated until after the pre-play.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
So basically it's "This year's not good for me." I think I'd WANT to attend a high school reunion being able to say I just won a million dollars. But if he failed the test, word-of-mouth anomg his classmates would probably not be that high anyway.

There was also something he forgot about a CD mat. How many other "Oh, by the way"s do you think there will be?

That being said, this one does seem to really want to do the test the right way.

Aside from the test, I'd have to ask him if he "warms up" his system every time he puts a CD in. Me, I just place & play.

Basically this year is good for me. :)

As for the CD mat, my proposed protocol asked that I be allowed to use all the accessory products I typically use. I admit that it was an afterthought to mention this to Mr. Kramer.

As for system warm-up, sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. My amplifiers and preamp are tube based.


Somebody is going to have to tell me where the buttons are and which ones to avoid pressing as I am completely clueless regarding this type of process.

[alfaniner]

(Edit -- cross-post with Wellfed/Michael's above)

(Randi) We'd then have 2 CDs, one of which has been magically treated. All anyone would know about them would be that they were marked "A" and "B" and one of those was "treated," the other not.


Careful, I think the word "treated" is being used to mean different things. I believe Michael meant that "treated" is by using Walker Audio Vivid, a liquid cleaner/treament, whereas Randi assumes that "treated" means "used with the chip" (which is what is actually being tested, right?)

(Michael) Two sealed copies of identical discs will be opened and identically treated with Walker Audio Vivid, my standard procedure.


So Michael would "clean" both discs with this stuff. Then only one of them would be "chipped". Thereafter, if there was a discernable difference due to different cleaning, could he know that because there is an A and a B, he has a 50% chance of guessing right?

I suggest use "cleaning" for the liquid treatment, and "chipping" for the chip treatment so everyone knows what everyone is talking about.

By the way :D I will vouch for using cleaning material on DVD's that have been damaged. Several times I have rented discs that are scratched and sometimes skip in my DVD player. I'd then take it to the basement and use 3M plastic polish (much cheaper than the Walker stuff, I bet!) in a radial motion until I got most of the scratches out. There have been one or two where the scratches were too deep, but it worked on the others. However, this should not be necessary for a new disc (and never was, for any of my brand-new DVD's).

I still think the variable of cleaning should be eliminated, unless that process could be automated.

[Wellfed]

My protocol requirements will need to allow for the ability to quickly A-B-A... the two discs. I don't doubt that it is a very nicely designed protocol, I just don't see it as being feasible in light of my requirements.

[alfaniner]

Could you use a multi-disc changer? It shouldn't matter if the player is one you are used to or not -- if there is a noticeable difference between chipped and unchipped discs.

For each trial, draw numbers and have the placer put disc A or B in slot 1 or 2, recording the placement. Then you could switch back & forth as desired.

However, they should be removed and re-randomized for each trial.

[gtc]

As I see its important to ensure that there is no audible difference between the CDs prior to the chipping, otherwise the test becomes 50-50.

Its also important to ensure that there are no possiblities for hidden cameras or the like to the monitor the changing over. I'm presuming a two disc CD changer would be used to stop visual identification of the CDs during the process.

From what I've read here I think a computer should be able to compare the bits coming off the CDs prior to the treatment taking place so that no minor scratches or imperfections would affect the sound quality.

I'm interested to see how this pans out.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Wellfed
My protocol requirements will need to allow for the ability to quickly A-B-A... the two discs. I don't doubt that it is a very nicely designed protocol, I just don't see it as being feasible in light of my requirements. The backing out procedure has been initiated. Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:.

Wellfed, just use two players and run the signal through a toggle switch. Then you can switch disk to your heart's content.

Hans

[edthedoc]

Wellfred: HAVE YOU DONE YOUR OWN DOUBLE BLIND TRIAL?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I haven't done any serious DBT tests. I didn't want to expend the effort until I knew for sure that the device was eligible for testing under the Challenge.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wellfed, just use two players and run the signal through a toggle switch. Then you can switch disk to your heart's content.

No hans, :rolleyes: a switch will introduce another variable, you have never participated in a DBT debate on an audiophiles forum, right?

[drelda]

Hi,

I can see why he wants to do A-B switching - if there really was a small subtle difference in the sound he would need to listen to the same section of music switching between the 2 discs.

It would be a shame if this prevented a test being done. Maybe I missed something, but why wouldn't this work :

1) you go buy 10 copies of the same disc with the applicant

2) put a temporary labelling scheme on the boxes (A, B, C etc on postit notes or something like that).

3) pick out 5 disks and apply the magic treatment (the applicant can observe this I guess - it doesn't matter). Write down which of the disks were treated using the A, B, C labelling

4) give all the discs to someone independant and ask them to make up a random mapping from A, B, C.. to 1, 2, 3 etc and keep that mapping safe and secret - and relabel the disks (in perm marker this time) as 1, 2, 3.

5) Note - at this point no one at all knows which discs were treated. The info is implicit in the secret envelope with the mapping.

6) Then you give all the discs back to the applicant - tell him to spend the weekend doing whatever he wants to in order to determine which ones had the magic device treatment. He can treat them all with special goo if he wants - whatever. He doesn't need any supervision and can take as long as he wants.

6) He then announces which of the discs (in 1, 2, 3 labels) he thinks are the magic ones - and the mapping is opened and you see if he was right.

You could do the whole thing by post if he trusts you to apply the magic treatment properly?

Would that be unsound somehow?

- Drelda

[jmercer]

Originally posted by drelda
Would that be unsound somehow?

- Drelda

I'm sure that was an unintended pun, but it made me laugh anyway. :D

[Orangutan]

It sounds good to me, no pun intended.

It's very simple and allows the applicant to do whatever he wants with the disks. I think He wanted 5 pairs of disks but the protocal carries over to that too.

His paranormal claim is really that the chip changes the disk in some way and that he can tell which disks have been "chipped", if he does this by listening too them, divining rod, covering them with peanut butter or feline spirit guide, shouldn't matter.

The odds of passing the test with 5 pairs is only 64:1 Is that ok for the prelim?

O.

Edit to add of course, IANAM. (I am not a magician!) ;) There could be something I'm missing!

Double edit, Actually I think I remember he said he could tell the disks sounded different not better. If thats the case the odd are halved to 32:1. If he's allowed to say "These 5 are the same" as the first on in a set like that is a gimme! ;).

[drelda]

The odds of passing the test with 5 pairs is only 64:1 Is that ok for the prelim?

I think the odds of passing the prelim by chance have to be worse than that - ie more like 1000:1.

But the idea remains - ie pick enough discs or pairs of discs so that its sufficiently unlikely to fluke the right answers - ie 10 pairs of discs would be enough I think, if he prefers a selection of material.

But - I hasten to add - I'm just offering an uninformed opinion - I don't have any experience of designing these protocols etc and realise I'm in the presence of giants so I better be humble etc etc... ie feel free to tell me to shut up :).

- Drelda

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
No hans, :rolleyes: a switch will introduce another variable, you have never participated in a DBT debate on an audiophiles forum, right? And the two players may have different sound, but that is fixed by randomizing. That is, the chipped CD is placed randomly on one or the other player. That will cancel out any differences.

But why is it that variables introduced by skeptics are bad, but variables, like the treatment (whatever it is) introduced by the audiophile are OK?

..... Sorry, I was looking for logic. My bad.


Hans

[Orangutan]

[i]
But why is it that variables introduced by skeptics are bad, but variables, like the treatment (whatever it is) introduced by the audiophile are OK?
[/B]

The applicant could claim the the variable introduced by the skeptic messed up the test. Where as anything he does to the disks would only be in his interest. As he is trying to prove he can pass the test, he would not willingly introduce a variable that would foil his attempt.

O.

[TheBoyPaj]

By the looks of the thread in the challenge forum, KRAMER seems to be going with the two-discs-only protocol. Surely a mistake?

[Timothy]

Some comments:

To those who suggest that Mr. Anda select among multiple CDs and determine which (and sometimes how many) have been chipped and which not ... that protocol does not test his claim, which is to distinguish between one chipped and one unchipped CD. The basic rule of the challenge is "Tell us precisely what you can do and design a test that objectively indicates success or failure." It's then up to JREF to determine whether the proposed test fairly tests the claim. Mr. Anda clearly wants at some points to listen to CD "A", then CD "B", then back to CD "A" in order to determine a difference. That is a very different thing than "Tell me if *this* CD is chipped."

Similarly, to those who have suggested examining the data bitstream ... the test *must* test what the applicant claims, not what someone else derives from that claim. If in negotiations the applicant agrees that a different test would be as effective, fine. But it's not up to anyone except Mr. Anda to voice his claim of what he can do.

----------------------------------------

Proceeding with the 2-disc protocol seems like a very bad idea to me, especially with the Walker Audio Vivid treatment. The best way to illustrate is with a similar protocol.

1. Obtain 2 pristine unopened identical CDs
2. "Treat" them with my special process ... making several drags across the surface of the CD with a nail.
3. Continue the rest of the protocol as described by Kramer and James Randi.

I submit that this crude and obvious process immediately reduces the odds of passing the preliminary to 50-50 by allowing anyone to reliably determine the difference between CD "A" and CD "B". Similarly, the application of the Walker Audio Vivid, in concert with only using two discs in the specified protocol may do exactly the same thing, and must be avoided.

-------------------------
So basically it's "This year's not good for me." I think I'd WANT to attend a high school reunion being able to say I just won a million dollars. But if he failed the test, word-of-mouth anomg his classmates would probably not be that high anyway.
I don't fault Mr. Anda for making this request. If Mr. Anda passes the preliminary, he will be the first applicant to do so. He would likely be the focus of some notariety, but wouldn't be going to his reunion with a wad of cash in his pocket. I can't speak for JREF, but it seems like in this eventuality, the negotiations for the formal test could well last many months. After all, $1M is on the line for both parties.

Look at how long we've been talking about just the prelim.




- Timothy

[rwguinn]

Timothy--
You have grasped my objections to the protocol as it is shaping up so far.
The original spiel (sp?) on this "chip" device was that it IMPROVES the quality.
so far all this guy is offering to do is tell us that 2 identical cd's are different after handling, when even the manufacturing process can cause differences.
He originally said he can tell the difference between a "chipped" CD and a non-"chipped" CD. 10 out of 10 times (or whatever number it was). So I believe that he must identify the "chipped" version. That gives him a 50% chance, as the protocol is shaping up.

Roger

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Timothy
I don't fault Mr. Anda for making this request. If Mr. Anda passes the preliminary, he will be the first applicant to do so. He would likely be the focus of some notariety, but wouldn't be going to his reunion with a wad of cash in his pocket. I can't speak for JREF, but it seems like in this eventuality, the negotiations for the formal test could well last many months. After all, $1M is on the line for both parties.
I believe Randi has stated repeatedly that the final test will be no different in protocol from the preliminary test. So I suppose there would be no reason for one to expect that there would be any delay between the preliminary and the final tests. No further negotiations would be required. The same protocol would be used again, as soon as possible.

Mr. Anda may, of course, have his own reasons for not wanting to undergo the test right now but if his reasons are based on the expectation that there will be a significant delay between the two tests, I think his fears are unfounded.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by rwguinn
The original spiel (sp?) on this "chip" device was that it IMPROVES the quality.

And yes, everyone who operates under the assumption that the proposed protocol tests this assertion must play closer attention.

Exerpts from Mr. Anda's written application: [emphasis mine]

"The claim to be tested under your Challenge is my ability to detect a difference between a GSIC-treated disc from a non-treated disc through simple listening tests."

"... I only claim that I can detect a difference using source material with which I am familiar in the context of my own primary sound system."

"I propose that if I positively identify 10 times - without error - whether a given disc is treated or untreated within the terms of a mutually agreed upon test protocol, I will have successfully proven my ability in this regard."



- Timothy

[IXP]

Let us suppose that every CD has some random playback errors that are normally not noticeable but one could train oneself to detect them. I think this is plausible, but it is also testable by reading and comparing the data-stream from multiple copies of the same CD.

Next, let's assume the test uses only 2 CDs.

If this is the case, then Mr WellFed has a 50% chance of becoming Mr VeryWellFed. All he has to do is distiguish the distinct error signatures between two CDs and guess which was the "chipped" one. The "chipping" is totally irrelevant. Actually, he only has a 25% chance since he has to do it twice.

The treating with a cleaning solution is even worse. If Mr WellFed is allowed to do the treatment himself, he could certainly attempt to scratch one of the CDs, inducing the errors that he might detect.

If it were my $Million, I would have 10 distinct pairs of CDs and Mr WellFed would never touch any of them.

IXP

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by IXP
The treating with a cleaning solution is even worse. If Mr WellFed is allowed to do the treatment himself, he could certainly attempt to scratch one of the CDs, inducing the errors that he might detect.

With proper Double Blind procedures in place, it wouldn't matter.

Even if he "treats" the disc prior to the test (also PRIOR to the placement of the chip), the applicant will NOT KNOW if the disc you say he may have "scratched" is the disc that's been chipped.

Get it?

DBT really does take care of a lot of the variables that have been discussed here. Let him do what he likes to the discs before the test. It really irks me, but Randi is right.

[TheBoyPaj]

Can you confirm whether the same two discs will be used for each repetition? Because if so, it does matter if he can tell the difference. As others have explained, it becomes a 50/50 risk.

You need to have different discs for each trial.

[TjW]

Originally posted by KRAMER
With proper Double Blind procedures in place, it wouldn't matter.

Even if he "treats" the disc prior to the test (also PRIOR to the placement of the chip), the applicant will NOT KNOW if the disc you say he may have "scratched" is the disc that's been chipped.

Get it?

DBT really does take care of a lot of the variables that have been discussed here. Let him do what he likes to the discs before the test. It really irks me, but Randi is right.

No. There is a difference between being able to tell two discs apart and being able to tell a treated from an untreated disc.
Consider two discs A & B, which he can reliably tell apart because A has a big "pop" at a particular point in a particular song. Disc B also has a big "pop", at a different place.
No one knows whether A or B has been treated with the GSIC.
Still , in the 10 trials, he picks AAAAAAAAAA.
If B was the treated disc, he loses.
If A was the treated disc, he wins.
It's a 50 percent shot because the trials aren't independent. You might as well do just one and get it over with.

With ten pairs of discs, even if he can tell disc A from disc B, disc C from disc D, etc, the trials are independent, and the odds go back up to 1 in 1024.

Now, personally, I think the applicant is fooling himself rather than trying to cheat, so I don't think it will matter. But conceptually at least, a surface treatment to both discs could result in differences between identically manufactured discs. Either disallow surface treatments, or use ten separate pairs of discs to make the trials independent.
I would lean toward the ten pairs of discs, myself.

[IXP]

Originally posted by KRAMER
With proper Double Blind procedures in place, it wouldn't matter.

Even if he "treats" the disc prior to the test (also PRIOR to the placement of the chip), the applicant will NOT KNOW if the disc you say he may have "scratched" is the disc that's been chipped.

Get it?

DBT really does take care of a lot of the variables that have been discussed here. Let him do what he likes to the discs before the test. It really irks me, but Randi is right.
I am sorry Kramer, but you are and Randi are both wrong. Please try this test yourself, as you so often suggest of the applicants:

Take 2 CDs, scratch one of them heavily with a sharp object. Now mark them "A" and "B" and have someone else randomly select one of the two CDs to represent the "chipped" one, keeping this information away from from you.

Then do 10 tests comparing the two CDs to see if you can determine which one sounds better. Unless you are deaf, you will pick the unscratched one each time. Now, in spite of the fact you have made 10 comparisons, you still have a 50/50 chance of picking the one chosen by your associate. This is becase there are only two possible outcomes, all correct or all incorrect, and they are equally likely.

The situation is entirely different if you have 10 different pairs of discs. In this case, you can scratch one of each pair, but you will still get about half of the trials wrong if you guess either the scratched or unscratched one in each case. Better yet, allow him to treat the 20 CDs before they are assigned to pairs, then he cannot even guarantee that each pair has a scratched and an unscratched disc.

p.s.

If you still insist that I am wrong, please accept my application, using exactly the above protocol, to test my paranormal ability to remote view the selection of the disc. A one in 4 shot a million is definitely worth my time.

IXP



IXP

[alfaniner]

re:IXP

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at earlier, but you said it better. A simpler way of imagining it might be -- what if you just used two completely different CD's? Disregard the whole treat/clean/chip thing for a moment. Ex: One disc is Van Halen, the other is Billy Joel. You could certainly tell a difference between the two, and could identify a specific disc every time. Therefore, you'd have a 50% chance of being correct overall.

BTW, I assume it is Michael that will have to pay for the CD's as JREF does not incur any of the costs of testing? There may be some objection if he has to buy 20 of them, 10 of them being duplicates. Still, I think it would be better to have 20 discs rather than two. Maybe even 20 of the same disc? (I hope he really likes that artist, then!) :D

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes it would cost quite a bit, but it has to be a worthwhile investment if he's as confident as he seems to be.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by IXP
I am sorry Kramer, but you are and Randi are both wrong. Please try this test yourself, as you so often suggest of the applicants:

Take 2 CDs, scratch one of them heavily with a sharp object. Now mark them "A" and "B" and have someone else randomly select one of the two CDs to represent the "chipped" one, keeping this information away from from you Hmm, I don't get it. The point is that one of the two CDs will be "chipped", either the scratched one or the normal one. The tester will not know which of the two was chipped, of course. Then, under these conditions, he must identify by listening alone which one was chipped, not the one that sounds better.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by TjW
No. There is a difference between being able to tell two discs apart and being able to tell a treated from an untreated disc.
Consider two discs A & B, which he can reliably tell apart because A has a big "pop" at a particular point in a particular song. Disc B also has a big "pop", at a different place.
No one knows whether A or B has been treated with the GSIC.
Still , in the 10 trials, he picks AAAAAAAAAA.
If B was the treated disc, he loses.
If A was the treated disc, he wins.
It's a 50 percent shot because the trials aren't independent. You might as well do just one and get it over with.

With ten pairs of discs, even if he can tell disc A from disc B, disc C from disc D, etc, the trials are independent, and the odds go back up to 1 in 1024.

Now, personally, I think the applicant is fooling himself rather than trying to cheat, so I don't think it will matter. But conceptually at least, a surface treatment to both discs could result in differences between identically manufactured discs. Either disallow surface treatments, or use ten separate pairs of discs to make the trials independent.
I would lean toward the ten pairs of discs, myself.

==============================================

Randi just stood over my desk, read through this post, and agreed with you.

Phew.

BTW, there will be no further protocol negotiations until after July, at which point the applicant will, presumably, be ready for preliminary testing.

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by IXP
Now, in spite of the fact you have made 10 comparisons, you still have a 50/50 chance of picking the one chosen by your associate. This is becase there are only two possible outcomes, all correct or all incorrect, and they are equally likely. Ah alright, now I get it.

[Wellfed]

Thanks to everyone for the input on my proposed protocol. While I don't think anyone, myself included, would have allowed for scratches on the test CD's, better safe than sorry.

Here is what I (APPLICANT) propose for a new, and better, test protocol. Unless I am missing something, I think this methodology is totally fair to both parties and in the end will prove what I wish to prove; that a difference can be discerned between GSIC treated discs and their untreated counterparts. It is a given that I need familiarity with the disc title to discern this difference. I personally find GSIC treated discs to be subjectively pleasing, but I don’t see where this satisfaction could ever be established by any testing methodology.

__________________________________________________ ______________________


GSIC Test Protocol Phase I:

GSIC treatment of test discs for both preliminary and final testing will take place in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area at a mutually agreed upon site.

APPLICANT will provide 5 identical untreated CD’s or 5 burned copies of a single CD title of APPLICANTS choosing. Disc media choice will be at the sole discretion of the APPLICANT.

Reasonable precautions will be taken by all parties to avoid scratching and smudging test discs at all times during Phase I.

At the site chosen for GSIC treatment the JREF observer will sign and number, with permanent marker, the label side of all 5 discs in the presence of the APPLICANT. At this point the discs will be put back in their cases and then shuffled by JREF observer and placed into a small two part color coded box. This box will then be moved to a place in close proximity to the transport/player. The JREF observer will then select and place 1-4 of these discs in another small two part color coded box awaiting GSIC treatment. APPLICANT will then, under JREF supervision, move the box containing the untreated discs to a mutually agreed upon position within the room. This box will remain untouched until the discs treated with the GSIC are merged back into the first box and shuffled by the JREF observer.

APPLICANT will provide the GSIC device.

APPLICANT will be allowed to observe disc handling of JREF observer from a mutually agreed upon position within the same room that precludes seeing the disc number of the disc to be treated. JREF observer will then insert the first disc to be GSIC treated into the transport/player and close the CD tray. APPLICANT will then apply the GSIC treatment and move back to the established observation point. The JREF observer will then remove the GSIC treated disc from the transport/player and place said disc label side down on a photocopy machine and close the lid. The photo copy machine will be placed in close proximity to the transport/player. WE then repeat this procedure for the next 0-3 discs. After all of the selected discs are treated and placed label side down in the photocopy machine the JREF observer will then make three copies of the GSIC treated discs labels. As each copy emerges from the photo copier the JREF observer will place an opaque sheet on top of each copy. JREF observer will then leave this stack in the copier until the treated discs are placed back in their cases and merged and shuffled with the untreated discs. The JREF observer will then take the three copies in the output stack and place them in an envelope. This envelope will then be sealed, signed and dated by both parties and then placed in the same box as the test discs.

The APPLICANT and the JREF observer will then take joint possession of this box and travel together to an agreed upon institution where the sealed envelope will be placed in a safe-deposit box. The APPLICANT will take sole possession of the test discs immediately after the sealed, signed and dated envelope is locked within the safe-deposit box. There will be an agreement made beforehand with said institution that the safe-deposit box can only be opened with the APPLICANT and James Randi present.

__________________________________________________ ______________________

GSIC Test Protocol Phase II:

APPLICANT will then be given time to analyze the discs to determine which disc numbers having been treated. APPLICANT would like to have 6 weeks time to analyze the test discs and return to Ft. Lauderdale with the results. Prior to revealing the disc numbers, APPLICANT will post the numbers believed to have received the GSIC treatment publicly at the JREF Forum. APPLICANT and Mr. Randi will then present themselves at the safe-deposit institution and one of the sealed copies will be given to each party, and the third copy will be given to a mutually agreed upon third party. If the numbers match APPLICANT will have proved a positive outcome and be entitled to the $1,000,000 USD Prize Money. If a single number does not match, this will be considered to be a negative outcome and the APPLICANT has no claim to the Prize Money.

__________________________________________________ ______________________


I don't think the time allotted for my testing really matters too much other than I will require sufficient time to make my assessments. Let me know what you think, your skilled input is truly appreciated.

[Beleth]

The worst odds in the 5-disc scenario above would be when 2 or 3 of the discs are GSIC treated, and even then it's only 1 in 10, since by the above protocol you would know exactly how many discs have been treated.

(There are 5 ways of picking 1 disc out of 5, 10 ways of picking 2 discs, 10 ways of picking 3 discs, and 5 ways of picking 4 discs.)

Typically, the JREF requres that the preliminary test have odds of about 1000:1 against. The minimum number of discs needed for 1000:1 or greater odds is 13; the closest odds to 1000:1 without going under for 13 discs is when 5 (or, alternatively, 8) of them are treated, which gives odds of 1287:1.

You can get closer to 1000:1, but that would require more than 13 discs.

The final test, with odds of 1,000,000:1, would require at least 23 discs. Of the 23 discs, 10 (or 13) would have to be treated, giving odds of 1,144,066:1. Again, numbers closer to 1,000,000:1 can be attained, but they would all require more than 23 discs.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Beleth
The final test, with odds of 1,000,000:1, would require at least 23 discs. Of the 23 discs, 10 (or 13) would have to be treated, giving odds of 1,144,066:1. Again, numbers closer to 1,000,000:1 can be attained, but they would all require more than 23 discs.
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the final test would be no different from the preliminary. That would mean that the final test would have the same odds as the preliminary.

The final test would simply be a matter of replication. Even if both tests individually have odds of 1,000:1, the cumulative odds would be 1,000,000:1

Beleth, you're quite right about requiring a minimum of 13 CDs for the test. 5 of them should be GCISed and 8 shouldn't (or the other way around). Or it could be done as 6+7 instead of 5+8, making the odds even stronger against chance.

By the way, by 'GCISed CDs', I mean - CDs that have been treated by the GCIS device. Since 'GCIS device' is the official name that is being used by the applicant to refer to the device that is being tested, I feel referring to the CDs as GCISed or non-GCISed would be much clearer and less confusing than words like 'treated' or 'chipped'.

Of course, it goes without saying that the non-GCISed CDs should be put through the same protocol as the GCISed ones. They should be placed into the transport/player and removed and photocopied. They should be subjected to all the SAME events (except the application of the GCIS device) as the GCISed ones. This would eliminate any clues that might be left by either the player or the photocopy machine.

(edited for typos)

[Wellfed]

What are the odds against me selecting the correct discs TWICE by chance with my current protocol proposal?

[Gulliver]

Let me state my assumptions...
Your protocol permits you to know how discs have been treated, 1, 2, 3, or 4. (You state that you can observe all disc handling.)

By the "TWICE" in your question, you are asking what are the odds that you'll select the correct disks by chance in two separate independent trials. (Please ask if you don't know what statistical independence is.)
------------------------------------
The answer is the square of the probability of one trial. If we assume that the JREF participant will choose the harder numbers of discs to be treated (2 or 3). The probability of choosing two (or three) items from five correctly by chance is .1 (or 1 out of 10). Doing so in two independent trials, would be .01 (or 1 out of 100).
-------------------------------------
Sir,
You're well below the threshold I'd accept. (I don't speak for JREF. I'm just a Forum Member.) You need to increase the difficulty by several orders of magnitude.
Regards,
Gulliver

[Timothy]

Comments:

(Preface: It is JREF's duty to prevent fraud. Money that supports the Challenge prize came from many donors who would be less than pleased if the prize were awarded on that basis. Therefore JREF must assume that fraudulent applicants exist, and must strive to design protocols that prevent it. Therefore, do not take as a personal affront my assertion that you must be treated as someone with aspirations of defrauding the JREF. *Everyone* must be treated in that way. However noble and innocent your motives may be, every effort must be made to examine the protocol for "could the applicant be cheating or scamming us?")

How do you insure that they are identical? Bought in a store? Sealed?

If they are burned copies, who burns them to assure that they are identical?

Numbering the discs with a single digit allows identification of that disc with just one glance. A barcode would be better, or a code number marked on the label side consisting of many digits would be preferable. ("2018300625348216" is just as valid as identifying the disc as "3" is.)

The process of choosing a number of discs to be treated, and then having the applicant see how many are treated should be discarded. The odds of choosing the correct CDs by chance are not sufficiently low. If the number of "chipped" CDs is 0 or 5, the applicant knows the final outcome with absolute certainty. ("Gee, I saw you "chip" 5 CDs. I wonder what number I will say were "chipped" after I listen to them?"). If the number of "chipped" CDs is 1 or 4, the applicant has a 1 in 5 chance of guessing correctly. If the number of "chipped" CDs is 2 or 3, the applicant has a 1 in 10 chance of guessing correctly.

"If the numbers match APPLICANT will have proved a positive outcome and be entitled to the $1,000,000 USD Prize Money." This is only the preliminary test. Succeeding on the preliminary merely moves you to the status of claimant and allows you to be formally tested.

- Timothy

[gtc]

I propose that if I positively identify 10 times - without error - whether a given disc is treated or untreated within the terms of a mutually agreed upon test protocol

Perhaps the applicant should not how many discs, if any, have been treated. With 10 discs there would be 1024 possible combinations.

A possible procedure is for the applicant to bring 12 sealed cds. Two would be given the letter A and B. The rest would be numbered 1 to 10.

Disc A would be treated in front of the applicant then returned to the applicant along with the untreated disc B. The applicant can use these as references later on and to demonstrate their ability to distinguish between treated and untreated discs under non-blind conditions.

A random selection of the numbered discs are treated out of sight of the applicant and their numbers are recorded. The applicant then has a fixed time to examine the 12 discs to determine the condition of the 10 numbered discs.

[Timothy]

Further comments:

I suppose that JREF's acceptance or rejection of Mr. Anda's revised protocol will answer this question.

Does taking the CDs away with no supervision constitute an acceptable "controlled" test?


- Timothy

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Vikram
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the final test would be no different from the preliminary. That would mean that the final test would have the same odds as the preliminary.

The final test would simply be a matter of replication. Even if both tests individually have odds of 1,000:1, the cumulative odds would be 1,000,000:1You're right, of course. I guess I whipped myself into a combinatorial frenzy with the 1000:1 calculation and just couldn't stop.

Originally posted by Timothy
How do you insure that they are identical? Bought in a store? Sealed?

If they are burned copies, who burns them to assure that they are identical?The latest protocol doesn't have Wellfed discern whether they are different; it has him discern whether they have been treated (or, in Vikram's more unambiguous terminology, "GCISed"). With that wording, they could be CDs of entirely different pieces of music, for all the JREF cares. I don't think it's possible to guarantee exactly identical copies of the same CD, and I know it's impossible to guarantee unscratched CDs, so this procedure which doesn't require them is a big step in the right direction.

Originally posted by gtc
Perhaps the applicant should not how many discs, if any, have been treated. With 10 discs there would be 1024 possible combinations.I like the part in the latest protocol where it's the applicant who actually performs the GCISing of the discs. He would necessarily have to know how many discs have been GCISed if he does this.

But in any case - 5 discs is way, way too few for a proper 1000:1 test.

[TheBoyPaj]

I don't like the protocol. Apart from the problem with the odds being too low, I wouldn't be happy having the treatment of the discs with all parties still in the room.

It's not double blind. There is contact between the person who knows which disc is which and the person who is guessing. However much they try to make sure that the applicant cannot see the numbers on the discs, I am sure that Randi will agree that there are ways to get around such measures.

Wellfed, why does the applicant need to apply the GSIC treatment? Why can this not be performed by an independent third party, with you out of the room?

I would suggest the following:

Discs supplied by applicant and pre-treated in whatever manner he chooses.

With all parties watching, discs are marked with an agreed numbering system.

Applicant and JREF observer leaves the room, leaving independent third party alone with discs.

Using an agreed randomisation protocol, specified number of discs are selected and treated with the chip. A record is made and sealed in an envelope, discs are shuffled and the envelope is taken out of the room by the third party.

Applicant and JREF representatives re-enter room and use whatever means the applicant chooses to identify which disc is which.

When applicant writes down his guesses, third party returns with envelope and comparison is made.

[Steven Howard]

Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.

The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").

Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.

People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).

The setup:

Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.

Demonstration:

A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.

The experiment:

The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:

In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.

Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.

T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.

After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.

What do you think?

[KRAMER]

I think that the applicant has agreed to contact us again when he is ready to be tested, after July. Until then there's little point to all of this. We have no desire to spend weeks (we've already spent a good amount of time & effort on this protocol) working on this, only to have to start all over again in a few months.

That is our experience; applicants who postpone the test will most often make strong efforts to re-design a test protocol if they have months to think about it further. We like to test applicants as soon after the protocol design has been determined as is humanly possible.

When the applicant is ready to submit his claim to a test without further excuses regarding his forthcoming notoriety, we'll re-start the protocol negotiations.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Steven Howard
Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.

The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").

Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.

People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).

The setup:

Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.

Demonstration:

A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.

The experiment:

The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:

In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.

Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.

T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.

After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.

What do you think?

I like this protocol. Anyone have any comments, or see any problems with it?

And, regardless of what KRAMER says about the specific applicant in this case, these discussions, as intellectual exercises, are good, and should continue. IMHO, of course.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
And, regardless of what KRAMER says about the specific applicant in this case, these discussions, as intellectual exercises, are good, and should continue.

I couldn't agree more, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I like this protocol. Anyone have any comments, or see any problems with it?

And, regardless of what KRAMER says about the specific applicant in this case, these discussions, as intellectual exercises, are good, and should continue. IMHO, of course.

I like it, and think it reasonable, but I think it unlikely that Wellfed will go for it. He seems pretty insistant that he get lots and lots of time to listen to the CDs. As I interpret his proposed protocol he wants to be able to go back and forth between the untreated CD and the unknown CD over a period of weeks or even months before making a call. This newly proposed protocol won't allow him to do that.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I couldn't agree more, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.

Kramer, stop trying to appear reasonable - we know better. You think we haven't been listening to Carey? :D

[Powa]

Originally posted by Metullus
As I interpret his proposed protocol he wants to be able to go back and forth between the untreated CD and the unknown CD over a period of weeks or even months before making a call.
This is strange. If Wellfed as an audio professional has such hard time determining whether a disc has been GSIC-ed or not (over a period of weeks), what good is the device anyway? It seems at best the effects are so week as to be indistinguishable from no effect at all.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Metullus
I like it, and think it reasonable, but I think it unlikely that Wellfed will go for it. He seems pretty insistant that he get lots and lots of time to listen to the CDs. As I interpret his proposed protocol he wants to be able to go back and forth between the untreated CD and the unknown CD over a period of weeks or even months before making a call. This newly proposed protocol won't allow him to do that.

I highly doubt this stipulation would get past the first round. There is no way I would allow the CD's to be out of immediate control of the testing entity.

I'm just curious, if it takes "so long" to tell if a CD has been chipped or not, there is probably not an immediately discernable difference in the first place.

Yes, this is a fun mental exercise, and has already illuminated an "I never thought of that" or two.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Powa
This is strange. If Wellfed as an audio professional has such hard time determining whether a disc has been GSIC-ed or not (over a period of weeks), what good is the device anyway? It seems at best the effects are so week as to be indistinguishable from no effect at all.

I don't disagree. But the question is not whether the device is particularly useful, it is only whether Wellfed can detect whether or not a disk has been GSICed.

This from Wellfed's proposed protocol:

"GSIC Test Protocol Phase II:

APPLICANT will then be given time to analyze the discs to determine which disc numbers having been treated. APPLICANT would like to have 6 weeks time to analyze the test discs and return to Ft. Lauderdale with the results. (snip)"

Frankly, my instinct says there is a problem with the 6 weeks, but I have not yet been able to put my finger on what the problem could be. Maybe it's the possibility that once the test occurs the 6 weeks will turn into 6 months and then when JREF lowers the boom we will hear "I just wasn't given enough time".

This may well be unfair of me: I have no reason to distrust Wellfed or question his intentions. The scenerio, is, however, plausible, given the history of the challenge.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by alfaniner
I highly doubt this stipulation would get past the first round. There is no way I would allow the CD's to be out of immediate control of the testing entity.

I'm just curious, if it takes "so long" to tell if a CD has been chipped or not, there is probably not an immediately discernable difference in the first place.

Yes, this is a fun mental exercise, and has already illuminated an "I never thought of that" or two.

What I have been trying to figure out is what could I do with the CDs during the 6 weeks to that would help me pass the test?

[Metullus]

Is Wellfed saying that he will identify the CDs that are traeted, or is he saying that he can simply detect a difference between treated and untreated CDs?

[Wellfed]

Basically my first protocol proposal was thrown out over concerns about potential fraud. I then designed a second protocol that I thought to be fair, but there are concerns about it not being statistically difficult enough. My position as APPLICANT has to be, that whatever protocol I agree to, I must believe that I can actually pass the tests. JREF's position is quite rightly to protect itself from fraud.

I will review Steve Howard's protocol and report back on whether I think I can pass such a test or not.

In the meantime my skin has become thick enough to deal with derisive comments from the typical poster, but I'm not willing to do so for this type of commentary issued by the administator. I also note that there has been alot of constructive criticism applied to this project and I greatly appreciate efforts to help develop a protocol that is agreeable, and fair, to both parties.

Audiophiles, to varying degrees, are interested in the quality of sound reproduction as well as the music. There is great variety in our assessment of what passes for a significant improvement. Sometimes hearing a given effect requires significant sensitivity, but once noted becomes nearly indispensible. Establishing my claim will depend greatly on how relaxed is the environment we can acheive with the test protocol.

I was recently locked out of the JREF for 5 days and therefore unable to respond to some of the comments made about me. This proved very unsettling, so much so that I could feel its effect on my listening sensitivity. So to repeat, I will not agree to any protocol that I don't think I have the ability to pass. I will be extremely careful in agreeing to the protocol terms.

Under the right circumstances I believe I can detect and identify a GSIC treated disc from an untreated disc. Under the right circumstances I will have this claim tested. Under the wrong circumstances this will NOT happen.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by Wellfed
My position as APPLICANT has to be, that whatever protocol I agree to, I must believe that I can actually pass the tests. JREF's position is quite rightly to protect itself from fraud.

...

So to repeat, I will not agree to any protocol that I don't think I have the ability to pass.


Nor should you be bullied into doing so by any member of this forum.

As much as various members have said "Why doesn't he do *this* instead?" you must be the one who decides if a protocol will test your supposition. Forum members can be helpful in pointing out deficiencies in the testing process and statistics, but since none of us fully understands what differences you claim to hear, *you* must specify what tests will work for you and which won't.

Since you are an eloquent, apparently reasonable applicant, willing to listen to suggestions and negotiate changes in protocol with far more ease than anyone else I've heard of, I would be very, very disappointed if the test did not take place because a mutually agreeable protocol could not be eventually negotiated.

- Timothy

[alfaniner]

"Locked out of the JREF Forum for 5 days"? Not commonly done here as far as I know, unless there has been a serious breach of the Forum rules. There may have been either a mistake or a misunderstanding.

One question Wellfed has not yet answered that has been posed many times. "Have you done a proper double-blind test yourself yet?"

You should certainly be able to do the test under your ideal circumstances, but if it seems like posters are nitpicking, it is to help eliminate any possibility of cheating or deception, whether or not you would even consider such a thing.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
"Locked out of the JREF Forum for 5 days"? Not commonly done here as far as I know, unless there has been a serious breach of the Forum rules. There may have been either a mistake or a misunderstanding.

One question Wellfed has not yet answered that has been posed many times. "Have you done a proper double-blind test yourself yet?"

You should certainly be able to do the test under your ideal circumstances, but if it seems like posters are nitpicking, it is to help eliminate any possibility of cheating or deception, whether or not you would even consider such a thing.

I assume my lack of access was due to a technical difficulty. I made the point to point out how easily my "sensitivity" was disturbed by this event.

I don't suppose I've done what is considered to be a proper DBT, I don't really see the point in it until I know exactly what type of testing methodology will be in place.

I don't really see the posters as nitpicking in the least. I don't know how we'd get around some of the points, but I am open to suggestions. I readily concur that JREF needs to protect themselves from frauds.


One last point, depending on the elements in the final protocol, I would like the option to have 3 months to settle back into my "groove" after the protocol is finally nailed down.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Timothy
...Since you are an eloquent, apparently reasonable applicant, willing to listen to suggestions and negotiate changes in protocol with far more ease than anyone else I've heard of, I would be very, very disappointed if the test did not take place because a mutually agreeable protocol could not be eventually negotiated.

- Timothy

Thank you Timothy, I hope we can agree on a protocol as well.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I don't suppose I've done what is considered to be a proper DBT, I don't really see the point in it until I know exactly what type of testing methodology will be in place.


Good point. :)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by jmercer
Good point. :)

I don't think so. He should check to see if he can actually do what he claims first. No sense in taking the time to set up a protocol if there's no point to it.

[Steven Howard]

Testing it out yourself doesn't need to be nearly as complicated as a formal trial would be. You can even do a very simple single-blind trial to start with. Get a friend and two copies of a CD -- one treated with the GSIC and one untreated. Label them somehow so there's no confusion. Sit where you can't see the CD player and have him pick one at random and play it. See how often you can tell which one he put in.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by IXP
There has been some discussion about the accuracy of reading data off a CD. Consider this: We read programs off CDs all the time. Changing random bits in a program are likely to have dramatic effects if that piece of code is ever executed. Yet programs read off CDs seem to operate flawlessly (well, as flawlessly as program can.) Reading data from an audio CD should be at least as accurate given that it acutally has more redundancy than data CDs do.

I'm coming into this late, but no, actually, it's just the opposite.

The original CD-Audio spec defines sectors (AKA audio frames) of 2352 bytes each. (2352 bytes corresponds to exactly 1/75th of a second of CD audio). These sectors are protected by two layers of error correction encoding.

CD-ROM uses the same sector format, but only 2048 bytes of each 2352 byte sector are used to store user data. The remaining space is used to add some features useful to CD-ROM. One is a sector number tag -- the audio format didn't have any method of identifying individual sectors because it was designed for streaming playback, not random access. But the bulk of it is used to store ECC data which can be used to correct the 2048 bytes of real data.

So, the data on a CD-ROM disc ends up with three layers of error correction, while CD-Audio makes do with two. (This also means that the data capacity of CD-ROM is reduced -- CD-Audio stores roughly 747MB of data, CD-ROM 650MB, ignoring the modern innovation of increasing capacity by changing the track pitch.)

TjW's comments about ripping a CD are right on. Ripping software can recover the exact bitstream from a CD and I would be very surprised if ripping two new CDs did not produce exactly the same image. MP3 encoding has nothing to do with it. The ripping software reads the exact bits, then an algorithm is applied to compress it to MP3 or WMA or whatever.

This is only MOSTLY true. The big problem is, as per above, CD-Audio sectors lack any identification. This makes seeking to an absolute location on a CD-Audio disc an interesting problem. There are some tricks in the format which support seeking to the start of a track, but not much else.

This comes into play during ripping, especially at speeds higher than 1X, because CD-ROM drives in rip mode will attempt to reread CD-Audio sectors which couldn't be corrected. (During ordinary audio playback at 1X, rereads of uncorrectable sectors are never done since that would interrupt playback, but ripping is not realtime so the drive gets the luxury of trying to go back and fix problems.)

The thing is, in order to seek backwards to reread an audio sector, with no sector identifiers, the drive has to just sort of guess and hope to hit the right sector. In practice, what they do is deliberately overshoot, reread many sectors, and try to perform identification of sequence by comparison with the sector data read during the first pass. If this process of comparison of overlapping reads fails to work correctly, the ripped data may contain repetitions or omissions of entire sectors, even if the rereads allowed the drive to correctly read the contents of all the sectors in question.

How likely that is depends on the quality of the drive's firmware, but it is far from unknown for it to actually happen. There is ripping software out there which uses low level drive commands to allow the ripping software to do the reread / reassembly work for itself rather than letting the drive do it. With better algorithms and bigger buffers, it's possible to get good rips even with bad drives and/or discs. (Example: Linux's cdparanoia.)

This is all much less prevalent now than it was several years ago, since optical drives have improved substantially. During the early years of CD-ROM, many drives had rather poor ripping performance.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by IXP
Take 2 CDs, scratch one of them heavily with a sharp object. Now mark them "A" and "B" and have someone else randomly select one of the two CDs to represent the "chipped" one, keeping this information away from from you.

Then do 10 tests comparing the two CDs to see if you can determine which one sounds better. Unless you are deaf, you will pick the unscratched one each time.

If these are brand new CDs, and there are no defects other than a single scratch, and the scratch is at all radial in direction (instead of parallel with the groove), the CD format's error correction will almost certainly deal with the scratch. Where by "deal" I mean that players will be able to completely recover the original data without significant difficulty; the discs will play back identically.

If you want this test to work, you'll have to carefully specify how the scratching is to be performed to guarantee that you can defeat CD's multilayered error correction.

[Wellfed]

How does this proposal sound?

The basic structure would be quite similar to my second proposal. The difference being using 10 sets of paired CD's. One GSIC treated, the other not.

I would provide 20 copies of the same title. Each set would be marked 01-A , 01-B, 02-A, 02-B,...10-A, 10-B.

I propose treating the CD's just as I have called for in my second proposal. I would treat the first disc then move back to the established observation point while the GSIC treated title is photo copied then shuffled back with the non-treated title in its own envelope. I will elaborate further if this proposal looks productive.

All other protocol elements would remain the same except I would leave Ft. Lauderdale with 10 envelopes containing 2 discs instead of one box of 5. I picture the safe-depost box now holding the results containing 30 photo copies (3 copies each page showing the 10 treated discs) instead of the 3 photo copies stored previously.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Steven Howard
Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.

The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").

Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.

People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).

The setup:

Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.

Demonstration:

A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.

The experiment:

The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:

In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.

Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.

T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.

After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.

What do you think?

Steven,

I've read your protocol and, unless I've missed something, I think it is quite good. I am assuming the 11th CD is a non-treated disc that I may use for reference purposes in each round. Under this proposal I would expect to be allowed to A-B-A... the constant reference disc with the subect disc from each round at will.

I'd much prefer my current proposal simply due to the fact that I would feel less pressure without ANY observers present. It has the added bonus that Mr. Randi would not have to travel to my city and I wouldn't have to incur that cost. I would be open to using a form of this protocol if legitimate exception is found with my current revision to my second proposal.

My feeling is that I would like to have an observer/tester of my own choice handle the real and fake GSIC devices in the room with T1.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...

My feeling is that I would like to have an observer/tester of my own choice handle the real and fake GSIC devices in the room with T1.

You can do that now. See if it works first.

I highly doubt that you would be allowed to take the discs out of the presence of any JREF testers.

[edthedoc]

Wellfed, it would be so easy for you to do a simple double blind trial in the comfort of your own home. It would save everyone a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment. Please think about doing this before you go any further.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by edthedoc
Wellfed, it would be so easy for you to do a simple double blind trial in the comfort of your own home. It would save everyone a lot of time, and you a lot of embarrassment. Please think about doing this before you go any further.

Thanks, now that I have a methodology I will do just that. I have to wait for another GSIC to arrive which will happen early next week.

[alfaniner]

Excellent. It will be interesting to hear your results.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I was recently locked out of the JREF for 5 days and therefore unable to respond to some of the comments made about me. This proved very unsettling, so much so that I could feel its effect on my listening sensitivity.

Uh-huh.

You've just told us all exactly what you will use as an excuse when/if you fail the test, should you ever agree to one, which now seems highly unlikely. If you fail the test, it won't mean that the chip doesn't work; it'll mean that the vibes were all wrong.

I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've heard this kind of thing. Randi likes to call such excuses "escape portals", and says that most applicants enter into the Challenge with one already prepared.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, sir. I'm just letting you know something you may not know about how 99% of all applicant's behave when they see that the test will be too rigorous for them to pass; they devise and prepare an excuse like the one you've just given us, and never agree to a test protocol, which you have warned us about also in this last post of yours, and I quote:

So to repeat, I will not agree to any protocol that I don't think I have the ability to pass.

OK then. That's good, and it's a very reasonable position to assume. This also saves everyone involved a lot of hard work.

Either your chip works and it's clear to you, or it's NOT clear to you at all, which is what all these increasingly convoluted protocols tells ME. You really have no idea if the chip makes anything sound better. You need 'forever' just to take an educated guess.

The prize money is not awarded for guesswork.

The effect, if it exists at all, is so very vague you don't even know how best to successfully demonstrate it, and you've even admitted that passing ANY test may very well prove impossible.

Thanks for being clear and honest about your intentions. We only ask that you NOT drag us through weeks of further negotiations before admitting this to yourself, and to us, and that you then withdraw your claim like a gentleman. No harm done.

Adversaries, but not enemies. This should be the goal in all aspects of the Challenge.

I strongly suggest that you conduct whatever test you and the forum members agree to as fair, in your own home, on your own time, with the help of a friend or two. Test your claim before this wastes any more of your time. It's the only truly reasonable thing to do.

TEST your belief in this chip before presenting it as FACT.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
One last point, depending on the elements in the final protocol, I would like the option to have 3 months to settle back into my "groove" after the protocol is finally nailed down.

OK, you just convinced me.

This has all been a joke, right?

If not, you have just gone from a uniquely reasonable applicant who seemed anxious to be tested, to just another applicant.

Either way, your application will remain on file here until 12 months have passed since its submission, or until you withdraw it.

I'm not reading this thread anymore. It's just become WAY too disappointing.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
...I highly doubt that you would be allowed to take the discs out of the presence of any JREF testers.

I don't see why it would matter in the least if this were done outside the presence of a JREF observer. All I'm trying to prove is that the GSIC does in fact effect a change that is discernable. I don't see where time, or location, have any bearing on the matter from the JREF perspective other than not wanting it to be open ended.

I think it would be good to establish the objective of both parties in this Challenge.

Here is how I see the matter; James Randi has strongly voiced the opinion that the GSIC is fraudulent, I, OTOH, strongly believe it to be effective. Since it is problematic, if not impossible, to prove a subjective claim, I am simply looking to prove that the GSIC effect can be identified under stringent testing.

What is the objective from the JREF perspective? I think it would help to know the essence of this as we try to establish a fair and worthwhile protocol. I know that I am not entirely clear as to what the JREF objective is.

[Steven Howard]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Steven,

I've read your protocol and, unless I've missed something, I think it is quite good. I am assuming the 11th CD is a non-treated disc that I may use for reference purposes in each round. Under this proposal I would expect to be allowed to A-B-A... the constant reference disc with the subect disc from each round at will.

Actually, no. The eleventh disc is really the "zeroth" disc, the one used in the "demonstration" phase where you verify that you can distinguish between discs treated with the dummy device and the real device when you know which is which.

Each round uses one CD. There's no switching back and forth. You listen to the untreated CD. The experimenter either treats it with the GSIC or pretends to. Then you listen to the CD again and say whether it sounds better.

I may have misread or misunderstood your original claim. I thought you said you could detect a difference after treating your CDs with the GSIC, and that's what I was trying to test.

I read your review at Audio Asylum:

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=360880&review=1

I see nothing there that suggests you had to repeatedly switch back and forth between treated and untreated copies of the same CD to hear the changes, or that it took you six weeks to be certain of the difference. You implied that there was an immediately noticeable improvement on all CDs you tried.

My whole idea was to get rid of the requirement that there be two copies of each CD. This allows you to handle the discs and do whatever you think you need to do without the possibility (however remote) of accidentally or intentionally creating detectable differences in them. It also reduces the expense of the experiment slightly, and avoids making you buy multiple copies of the same CD.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Steven Howard
Actually, no....

Do you think that your protocol, along with my revisions, would serve as a proper protocol?

I stand by my review at Audio Asylum, but under the stress of observation I don't think my perception would remain constant. If JREF doesn't see fit to approve my latest suggestions I'd like to see a modified version of yours implemented. In any event I'm going to begin testing myself along the lines of your protocol. I really think your ideas are quite good.

Do you see any reason why T2 would have to remain in the room as I make my determination?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Q: What is the objective from the JREF perspective?

A: To conclusively differentiate fact from fiction.

Our sole objective is to establish the TRUTH of the matter.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
A: To conclusively differentiate fact from fiction.

Our sole objective is to establish the TRUTH of the matter.

Thanks, that has been my assumption all along. Now with regards to my application, rightly or wrongly, I've felt like I've been in the dark with this process. I used the word clueless previously and you apparently agree. ;)

Trust me, I don't want to make this any more difficult than it naturally is. I've been thinking; is it possible that someone here would be willing to become my advocate in protocol negotiations? I see myself as being a frustration for you and don't see your comments as being constructive. Perhaps someone with more familiarity with the process can act as a go between between myself and the JREF in setting up a test. I certainly don't want to be a source of frustration for anybody.

[edthedoc]

Wellfed, I think it's time you went away and did your own trial, now, before you waste any more of JREF's time. It would be so easy to do.

The longer these discussions go on for, the less convinced I am of your intentions, and the more convinced I am that you will never be tested, because you will never agree to a protocol.

This is all becoming a bit boring, and so like all the other claimants that never get tested.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by edthedoc
Wellfed, I think it's time you went away and did your own trial, now, before you waste any more of JREF's time. It would be so easy to do.

The longer these discussions go on for, the less convinced I am of your intentions, and the more convinced I am that you will never be tested, because you will never agree to a protocol.

This is all becoming a bit boring, and so like all the other claimants that never get tested.

What discussions?

As things sit, Kramer doesn't want to discuss the protocol negotiation matter until July.

I have a few frustrations myself. The primary one being no negotiation having taken place in the first place. Assuming you've read the record I am sure you've found that no counter-proposal from JREF is to be found regarding any of my proposals with the exception of one comment from Mr. Randi stating that I would have to leave the room as discs are swapped. This was not a practical consideration in my estimation and I've stated as much. No counter-proposal was presented by JREF regarding this concern.

I just received a new GSIC on Monday and it is my intent to start doing some trials along the lines of Steven Howard's suggested methodology this coming weekend. Because of busyness in my family life I probably won't be able to do any significant testing until the following weekend.

FWIW, I intend to diligently pursue the challenge despite my frustrations. I have many personal events going on over the next several months so the delay is actually somewhat welcome to me right now. My largest concern is not finding a mutually agreeable protocol, I am most willing to try. BTW, what do you think of my advocate idea?

I am finding this whole process to be quite paranormal, if you will.

[MRC_Hans]

Interesting position: "I'm about to win one million $ cash and I will be able to write my own paycheck on audio magazines after this, plus I'll have to beat audio manufacturers wanting me to endorse their products off with a stick, but I can't find time to do a little extra testing for some time due to various private matters."

That sounds serious, Wellfed. Who is dying? I mean, which OTHER family couldn't be juggled around a bit to pave the way for fame and fortune?

Or is it that you don't reall, really believe you're gonna make it?

Likewise with protocol: You are so shure of this thing. So how could protocol details matter to you? I mean, this thing just WORKS, so why should it stop working just because the protocol is a bit different?

Hans

[Powa]

Originally posted by Wellfed
What discussions?

As things sit, Kramer doesn't want to discuss the protocol negotiation matter until July.
Hm... didn't you say that you wished to avoid notoriety until after your high school reunion in August? Have I missed something (quite possible)?

I am finding this whole process to be quite paranormal, if you will.
Which process? Negotiations?

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Interesting position: "I'm about to win one million $ cash and I will be able to write my own paycheck on audio magazines after this, plus I'll have to beat audio manufacturers wanting me to endorse their products off with a stick, but I can't find time to do a little extra testing for some time due to various private matters."

That sounds serious, Wellfed. Who is dying? I mean, which OTHER family couldn't be juggled around a bit to pave the way for fame and fortune?

Or is it that you don't reall, really believe you're gonna make it?

Likewise with protocol: You are so shure of this thing. So how could protocol details matter to you? I mean, this thing just WORKS, so why should it stop working just because the protocol is a bit different?

Hans

There has been no protocol established. I am going ahead with a variation of Steven Howard's test simply to have something to work with.

No one is dying in my family.

Here's what on my plate over the coming months.

End of May: Son graduating from High School
June: Florida vacation anticipated
Mid July: High School reunion
Mid August: expecting first grandchild

Currently my daughter is just finishing her basketball season. Her last tournament of the season is this coming weekend. She then starts Spring soccer season.

I can do without the fame, the fortune does sound pretty good though. ;)

As for the protocol; I was under the impression that this was a requirement, not a nicety. After reading the Challenge FAQ I wasn't expecting a non-process.

As for myself, I continue to hear the effect caused by the GSIC, the protocol chosen is vitally important for that claim to be demonstrated to the public. FWIW, I don't see it as happening under antagonistic conditions. In fact, I won't even attempt the test under such conditions. Refer to section 2.1 in the Challenge FAQ.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Powa

Hm... didn't you say that you wished to avoid notoriety until after your high school reunion in August? Have I missed something (quite possible)?[/B]

I've stated that I'd like to avoid notoriety entirely if possible.


Originally posted by Powa
Which process? Negotiations? [/B]

I should have said non-process. I respect the JREF decision to suspend negotiations until July, but I've told them that I thought it prudent to hammer out the protocol prior to that time. They chose not to publish this correspondence in the Challenge Applications section of the forum even though they've posted my other correspondence.

Since there was no negotiations prior to my request to wait for my reunion to pass, I didn't view this request as problematic. Also, the Challenge FAQ indicated that the Challenge process typically takes 1-6 months in the first place.

[Wellfed]

I need to clarify a point.

JREF was actively involved in discussing the test protocol, they just didn't offer any counter-proposals to disagreeable elements.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Wellfed
...
FWIW, I don't see it as happening under antagonistic conditions. In fact, I won't even attempt the test under such conditions. Refer to section 2.1 in the Challenge FAQ.

Then it is highly unlikely that you will ever submit to the test. It is a challenge, after all.

You claim you can do (or show) something. Do it. Or don't do it.

Also, there is no point in continuing this until you do your own test first.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I need to clarify a point.

JREF was actively involved in discussing the test protocol, they just didn't offer any counter-proposals to disagreeable elements.

Well, since the protocol is to be mutually agreed upon, it is incumbent upon you to propose changes to parts you find disagreeable.
The process is called negotiation. The only part that is non-negotiable is the integrety of the test.
Roger

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Then it is highly unlikely that you will ever submit to the test. It is a challenge, after all. [/B]

This seems to be a common belief around here. I've stated my intent to diligently seek to be tested.

Originally posted by alfaniner
You claim you can do (or show) something. Do it. Or don't do it.

Also, there is no point in continuing this until you do your own test first.

Do we even have a protocol for a test?

I have stated when and how I plan to do some testing without an established protocol. I'd prefer to do my testing after a test protocol has been agreed upon.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by rwguinn
Well, since the protocol is to be mutually agreed upon, it is incumbent upon you to propose changes to parts you find disagreeable.
The process is called negotiation. The only part that is non-negotiable is the integrety of the test.
Roger

Thank you Roger, I believe I have done this.

[nathan]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Here's what on my plate over the coming months.

End of May: Son graduating from High School
June: Florida vacation anticipated
Mid July: High School reunion
Mid August: expecting first grandchild

Currently my daughter is just finishing her basketball season. Her last tournament of the season is this coming weekend. She then starts Spring soccer season.
Oh for goodness sake! that's just a regular amount of stuff everybody has. Allocating time, I'd reckon the following would be good estimates
<ul> Son graduating: half a day
Vacation: 1 week?
Reunion: one evening
Child: depends on locality, 1 week cumulative? (Grandparents need to get out of the way and let the parents get on with parenting)
soccer season:depends, are you going to every match? 1 a week? 4 hours a week?[/list]
If it were me with a sure-fire way of getting a million, I'd prioritize and reassign the vacation time to doing the test. Then I'd take a longer holiday :)

You're just prevaricating. Either get and move on, or we'll just come to the conclusion you're blustering.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Wellfed
What discussions?

As things sit, Kramer doesn't want to discuss the protocol negotiation matter until July.

I have a few frustrations myself. The primary one being no negotiation having taken place in the first place. Assuming you've read the record I am sure you've found that no counter-proposal from JREF is to be found regarding any of my proposals with the exception of one comment from Mr. Randi stating that I would have to leave the room as discs are swapped.
his whole process to be quite paranormal, if you will.

Wellfed,

Stephen Howard's proposal was very good for reasons that seem to have escaped everyone.

The prior proposals all involved distiguishing two discs, a treated one and an untreated one. There are many problems with that type of test as pointed out in this forum.

Compare this to the protocols used in testing drugs. We don't treat one of two patients and then look for a difference. We treat a group of patients with either the real thing or a placebo and do it in a way that is blind to both the patients and the doctor administering the test.

Stephen's protocal is analogous to this type of double-blind test It involves treating a group of discs with a real GSIC or a "placebo" GSIC. Once this is done, you have to determine which discs are treated with the GSIC.

Under this protocol, you can do anything you want with this disc to make the determination. You can swap back and forth between the disc in question and two others, one known to be treated and one known to be untreated. I would even go so far as to allow you to capture and analyze the digital data from the disc, examine it with a microscope, or hold a pendulum or diviing rod over the disc!

I would further propose that you use an expired GSIC for the dummy device and use a sealed envelope to hide the device when it is applied to the disc.

If this protocol is acceptable to you, please propose it to Kramer. If you do, I am sure you can quickly come to agreement.


IXP

[Beth]

Originally posted by nathan
Oh for goodness sake! that's just a regular amount of stuff everybody has. Allocating time, I'd reckon the following would be good estimates
<ul> Son graduating: half a day
Vacation: 1 week?
Reunion: one evening
Child: depends on locality, 1 week cumulative? (Grandparents need to get out of the way and let the parents get on with parenting)
soccer season:depends, are you going to every match? 1 a week? 4 hours a week?[/list]
If it were me with a sure-fire way of getting a million, I'd prioritize and reassign the vacation time to doing the test. Then I'd take a longer holiday :)

You're just prevaricating. Either get and move on, or we'll just come to the conclusion you're blustering.

That really isn't fair. You might only spend half a day on your son's graduation, but many people spend weeks preparing for such an event. Mailing out invitations, preparing for guests, etc. It can, depending on the extent of the preparations, take a great deal of time.

Vacation - 1 week for you maybe, but its common to take 2 and vacations of 3 weeks or longer are not unheard of.

A grandchild expected? Again, depends on the family relationship and how close they are. Many parents spend a great deal of time with their child who is soon to be a parent for the first time, helping them prepare for the new arrival.

To me, that he would put such things as a higher priority than preparing for the challenge says that he has his priorities straight.

Further, if he actually expects to win the challenge, he will need to do a great deal of preparation. Making sure test conditions are something he can preform under and honing his skill at making the distinction. That will require a good deal of time spent listening to different discs with and without the treatment applied.

Given that there are only so many hours in a day and so many days in a week and that he has to continue to work at a normal job, I can well understand his wanting to take his time in preparing while simultaneously keeping up with all of the other obligations he has on his time.

Beth

Edited for grammatical errors

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by nathan
Oh for goodness sake! that's just a regular amount of stuff everybody has. Allocating time, I'd reckon the following would be good estimates
<ul> Son graduating: half a day
Vacation: 1 week?
Reunion: one evening
Child: depends on locality, 1 week cumulative? (Grandparents need to get out of the way and let the parents get on with parenting)
soccer season:depends, are you going to every match? 1 a week? 4 hours a week?[/list]
If it were me with a sure-fire way of getting a million, I'd prioritize and reassign the vacation time to doing the test. Then I'd take a longer holiday :)

You're just prevaricating. Either get and move on, or we'll just come to the conclusion you're blustering.

You are allowed to come to any conclusion you'd like about me and I will make my own conclusions about you.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by IXP
Wellfed,

Stephen Howard's proposal was very good for reasons that seem to have escaped everyone.

The prior proposals all involved distiguishing two discs, a treated one and an untreated one. There are many problems with that type of test as pointed out in this forum.

Compare this to the protocols used in testing drugs. We don't treat one of two patients and then look for a difference. We treat a group of patients with either the real thing or a placebo and do it in a way that is blind to both the patients and the doctor administering the test.

Stephen's protocal is analogous to this type of double-blind test It involves treating a group of discs with a real GSIC or a "placebo" GSIC. Once this is done, you have to determine which discs are treated with the GSIC.

Under this protocol, you can do anything you want with this disc to make the determination. You can swap back and forth between the disc in question and two others, one known to be treated and one known to be untreated. I would even go so far as to allow you to capture and analyze the digital data from the disc, examine it with a microscope, or hold a pendulum or diviing rod over the disc!

I would further propose that you use an expired GSIC for the dummy device and use a sealed envelope to hide the device when it is applied to the disc.

If this protocol is acceptable to you, please propose it to Kramer. If you do, I am sure you can quickly come to agreement.


IXP

I agree, I think Steven's proposal is quite good. I had submitted an idea just prior to his proposal that I'm kind of stuck on, but I did suggest that Steven's plan would be quite acceptable to me. I like my last proposal in that I would have no stresses placed on me by having an observer present.

[KRAMER]

August: Something came up. Heat Wave. Snow in Kansas.

September: School Begins. Granchild beings teething.

October: Halloween. Interim reports.

November: Kramer's Birthday. Weekends are a no-go.

December: Happy Baby Jesus Day, and subsequently, New Years.

January: Basketball Season resumes. Lost Weekend.

If it isn't one thing, it's something else. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think Wellfed has earned it.

Regarding Wellfed's "non-process" and "no negotiations" comments, well, I find it absurd and rather manipulative coming from the man who said, "I'd prefer to wait until after my high school reunion."

The moment I get an email from Wellfed stating that he is absolutely ready to be tested NOW, I'll give his claim my fullest attention, as well as my respect and courtesy. Until then, it all just seems identical to the waffling we see with hundreds of other applicants, illustrated best by Wellfed's most recent "escape portal", as follows:

FWIW, I don't see it as happening under antagonistic conditions. In fact, I won't even attempt the test under such conditions.

Yes, the escape portals are definitely becoming less and less vieled as time marches on.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Beth
That really isn't fair. You might only spend half a day on your son's graduation, but many people spend weeks preparing for such an event. Mailing out invitations, preparing for guests, etc. It can, depending on the extent of the preparations, take a great deal of time.

Vacation - 1 week for you maybe, but its common to take 2 and vacations of 3 weeks or longer are not unheard of.

A grandchild expected? Again, depends on the family relationship and how close they are. Many parents spend a great deal of time with their child who is soon to be a parent for the first time, helping them prepare for the new arrival.

To me, that he would put such things as a higher priority than preparing for the challenge says that he has his priorities straight.

Further, if he actually expects to win the challenge, he will need to do a great deal of preparation. Making sure test conditions are something he can preform under and honing his skill at making the distinction. That will require a good deal of time spent listening to different discs with and without the treatment applied.

Given that there are only so many hours in a day and so many days in a week and that he has to continue to work at a normal job, I can well understand his wanting to take his time in preparing while simultaneously keeping up with all of the other obligations he has on his time.

Beth

Thank you Beth, it is good to have someone acknowledge what goes on in the real world. My family means a great deal to me and I have much to look forward to.

As for the impression that I am stalling I point out that my request was simply that FINAL testing occur after Aug. 1, 2005. This was simply a request that I expected to be granted or denied. It is my impression that much of what I've requested or suggested has been misconstrued. OTOH, much of what I require has been graciously accepted.

I have never been in any rush to have my claim tested and for that matter I did not have any reason to believe the JREF was either. In the final analysis I will require a relaxed atmosphere free of undue outside influence in order to have any chance of passing.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by IXP


[snip]
I would even go so far as to allow you to capture and analyze the digital data from the disc, examine it with a microscope, or hold a pendulum or diviing rod over the disc!
IXP

Not a good idea, IMHO. Nor should there be a lack of an observer.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
August: Something came up. Heat Wave. Snow in Kansas.

September: School Begins. Granchild beings teething.

October: Halloween. Interim reports.

November: Kramer's Birthday. Weekends are a no-go.

December: Happy Baby Jesus Day, and subsequently, New Years.

January: Basketball Season resumes. Lost Weekend.

If it isn't one thing, it's something else. Sorry for the sarcasm, but I think Wellfed has earned it.

Regarding Wellfed's "non-process" and "no negotiations" comments, well, I find it absurd and rather manipulative coming from the man who said, "I'd prefer to wait until after my high school reunion."

The moment I get an email from Wellfed stating that he is absolutely ready to be tested NOW, I'll give his claim my fullest attention, as well as my respect and courtesy. Until then, it all just seems identical to the waffling we see with hundreds of other applicants, illustrated best by Wellfed's most recent "escape portal", as follows:

FWIW, I don't see it as happening under antagonistic conditions. In fact, I won't even attempt the test under such conditions.

Yes, the escape portals are definitely becoming less and less vieled as time marches on.

If you are willing to accept my last proposal we can get started shortly. How does June sound when I expect to be down your way? I believe if you would CLOSELY read my various proposals and requests the situation would not appear to be so dire.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
...September: School Begins. Granchild beings teething...


You are correct about September being bad, getting kids settled into school is tough work. I don't anticipate any problems with my grandchild.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
If you are willing to accept my last proposal we can get started shortly. How does June sound when I expect to be down your way? I believe if you would CLOSELY read my various proposals and requests the situation would not appear to be so dire.

OK, so are you now saying that you wish to be tested in FL in June? What about your need to use your own audio gear for the test? Are you bringing it all with you?

Randi is anxious to conduct this test wherever you like. Just say the word, and I'll present your finalized protocol to him immediately upon receipt.

Oh joy of joys. A little sarcasm goes a long, long way.

Right now the only problem is that I mis-spelled VEILED. My bad.

[Timothy]

I find the following aspects of this discussion to be distasteful, disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and completely irrelevant:

- Forum participants second-guessing Mr. Anda's motives. Why Mr. Anda chooses his schedule for demonstration, and the relative priority he places on this demonstration versus the other aspects of his life has no bearing on the challenge as far as the forum participants are concerned. If Mr. Anda is continually changing plans with the Challenge Coordinator, that is another matter. Not being privy to the private exchanges, I can only comment to what's been posted here ... my personal opinion is that the material that's been exchanged in "negotiation" for the whole two week period this has been going on is by no means onerous.

- From the FAQ: "An application made by an earnest applicant may take 1-6 months to handle, considering the refining of the application wording and the mutual negotiation of a mutually acceptable preliminary test. It should not take longer than a few weeks, ideally, so long as an acceptable test is quickly agreed upon." Neither the Challenge Rules nor the FAQ indicate that the applicant must be "absolutley ready to be tested NOW" in order to refine protocol negotiations with JREF. It's only been two weeks and from the looks of the forum thread Mr. Anda has had quite a bit of input in the informal refining his proposed protocol with forum members. Whether formal negotiations have begun between Mr. Anda and JREF is between them.

- Discussing what future excuses Mr. Anda will make to halt the testing. If you must, berate him after he's done it. To do so in advance is contemptable.


I think the forum is a good sounding board for Mr. Anda to air his ideas and to get input as to what would make a valid test. As the Challenge Coordinator has pointed out on several occasions, most if not all applicants have no idea what propoer double-blind testing entails. The forum is one place that they can get feedback as to what portions of their protocols simply will not pass muster. If the Challenge Coordinator is overwhelmed by the load of inadequate, incomplete, incomprehensible applications from total whack-jobs, and is reticent to spend what he views as wasted time in negotiations on this application, then the forum would be the perfect place to help Mr. Anda by nailing down a good, solid protocol that he could present to JREF ... in the hope that enough care was taken that the preliminary test *could* be carried out almost immediately.

Constant sniping at Mr. Anda will not help in this regard.


If forum members want to belittle Mr. Anda, fine. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to tout credible, observable, properly controlled, repeatable tests as the hallmark of truth but to not put effort into a testable claim because you've already dismissed the applicant.

- Timothy

[KRAMER]

Mr. Anda, if you are serious about being tested in June in Florida, PLEASE email me at kramer@randi.org so that we may pick up where we left off. The forum is invaluable for discourse and expert advice, but formal negotiations are finalized via email, and not here. It seems we're inches away from a protocol anyway, the details and specifics of which I assure you I HAVE closely read.

Timothy, the point of the Challenge is not to "berate" people after they have failed to demonstrate their claim. Those brave enough to step forward and be tested expeditiously deserve and receive better than that.

That group, however, is painfully small. Beside it sits a vastly more expansive group of applicants who make claims, waffle, offer lame excuses, and eventually back out with an endless stream of silliness that just won't come out in the wash.

In my opinion, no forum member was out of line when alerting Mr. Anda to the fact that such excuses as he was offering are just part of the same old song sung by applicants submitting claims they knew full well could never pass a controlled test. The subject of MOTIVE had to enter into it, as the mind naturally and happily drifts there when confronted with what appears to be, well, BS.

There is nothing disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, or irrelevant about it. Its relevance is right in your face. How could any critical thinker ignore it?

If Mr. Anda passes the preliminary and then goes on to pass the formal test, everybody wins. It's a happy day for all involved.

If Mr. Anda is NOT able to demonstrate his claim, he still wins, so long as he is willing to accept the notion that the Challenge experience has taught him something about how human perception is so easily fooled into believing what is comforting, as opposed to what is true and real, and if he learns that, he's learned a huge life lesson, and he's a BIG winner in our eyes.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Timothy, the point of the Challenge is not to "berate" people after they have failed to demonstrate their claim.
Quick clarification. My point was "If you must, berate him after he's [backed out of the Challenge]," and did not refer to attempting and failing the Challenge. I objected to the barbs thrown his way based on the presumption he would back out, rather than something he had actually done.

- Timothy

[Wellfed]

Well here's some more ammunition for ridicule.

I found out just this evening that June is out for our family vacation to Florida. Depending on how the protocol ends up I may choose to fly to Florida expressly for Challenge purposes for a short time in June. I am looking to reschedule our vacation for early August, but have some family objections to overcome before I could commit to that period. I would prefer August dates.

Other than a few potential, but hard to pin down, dates over the summer I think it best to state right now that October, November, and December of this year is going to be the best I can do. I have more peace with these later dates, especially if my current proposal is rejected. If my last proposal is accepted in some form I am pretty confident I can fit the preliminary test in over the course of the summer. I can then do the final testing after September. I take vacations to Florida in November or December most years so these months would be my preference for the final testing if applicable.

I plan on calling Kramer tomorrow to see if we can get a better idea of what is possible regarding protocol and timing. I would like to get this thing on a track that is acceptable to all, and most importantly on a track acceptable to Kramer, Mr. Randi and myself.

For those interested, I will definitely have performed some type of DBT with the GSIC by April 10.

[rwguinn]

$1,000,000 will buy a lot of vacation time...
If I were as confident of my abilities as you are, I would have no hesitation "betting the farm" on passing the test...

Roger

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by rwguinn
$1,000,000 will buy a lot of vacation time...
If I were as confident of my abilities as you are, I would have no hesitation "betting the farm" on passing the test...

Roger

The problem with our June vacation plans is that my son is moving to a different level in Baseball and I just found that his season now extends from May 9th through July 29th. At his former level the season went from the third week in June through the end of July. I was anticipating the Florida vacation schedule based on what I thought his schedule would entail. I made a faulty assumption with that. As I mentioned, if necessary I will do the preliminary testing in June if my current proposal is accepted and the June dates are preferable to JREF. My preference though would be early August in which event I can coordinate my travel plans with JREF Challenge business. I will have to talk with Kramer about JREF's take on the matter.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Wellfed
The problem with our June vacation plans is that my son is moving to a different level in Baseball and I just found that his season now extends from May 9th through July 29th. At his former level the season went for the third week in June through the end of July. I was anticipating the Florida vacation schedule based on what I thought his schedule would entail. I made a faulty assumption with that. As I mentioned, if necessary I will do the preliminary testing in June if my current proposal is accepted and the June dates are preferable to JREF. My preference though would be early August in which event I can coordinate my travel plans with JREF Challenge business. I will have to talk with Kramer about JREF's take on the matter.
As a father of a former Little Leaguer and college saxophone player, and as the uncle of a very good JV Baseballer who started in Pony League, I accept your reason. Kids grow up way too fast.
And a million bucks won't bring back these days. Enjoy them while you can.
Roger

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by rwguinn
As a father of a former Little Leaguer and college saxophone player, and as the uncle of a very good JV Baseballer who started in Pony League, I accept your reason. Kids grow up way too fast.
And a million bucks won't bring back these days. Enjoy them while you can.
Roger

Thanks for your sentiments Roger. His schedule won't prohibit me from traveling to Florida in June if necessary, it just nixed our plans for a family vacation in June, I would have liked for this vacation and JREF business to coincide is all. Under the right circumstances I am willing to fly to Florida in June. Again though, my preference is now August for reasons of economy. I would also like as much time as possible after the protocol is set to settle in and relaxedly prepare for the tests.

I get the impression that JREF would like to test quickly after the protocol has been established. I'm not sure if my impression is correct and if it is, why it makes a difference. I am sure I will find out soon enough.

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry, but I still think it is very strange. Here you have this device that will shatter most of the way science thinks, will bring yourself fame, fortune, and honor, and will ensure your livelihood for the rest of your life. You will get a place in history as the man whose keen sense of hearing led the way to a rewriting of the laws of physics.

And you are talking about vacation plans .....

What kind of spirit is that? I mean, if the JREF protocol is not good enough, design your own experiment and publish it in a scientific journal. After all, the money making potential on this stuff makes a puny million look like small change.

What ARE you waiting for?

Hans

[Vikram]

Could it be that Mr. Anda is perhaps not as confident anymore about the abilities of the GCIS device as he was when he first wrote the glowing review?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Vikram
Could it be that Mr. Anda is perhaps not as confident anymore about the abilities of the GCIS device as he was when he first wrote the glowing review? In the final analysis I will require a relaxed atmosphere free of undue outside influence in order to have any chance of passing.This quote certainly doesn't sound all that confident.

I don't know that price of the audiophile product that we're talking about here, but I'm assuming it's something on sale at least. Now, if I was reviewing any audio product, and I really had to strain and concentrate like mad to be sure about any difference, or the least bit of "pressure" made me unable to tell the difference, I don't see how I could in all conscience advise my readers to shell out money for it.

How come that these things in review are always described as being such a revelation, and making such an amazing difference to the sound, then when the chips are really down it seems that actually telling whether the device is present or not might be pretty difficult.

Something not right about all this. Come on, Wellfed. Explain to me why I should consider shelling out money for something which makes such an imperceptible difference that you have to be in just the right frame of mind before you can tell whether it's even there or not?

Rolfe.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Something not right about all this. Come on, Wellfed. Explain to me why I should consider shelling out money for something which makes such an imperceptible difference that you have to be in just the right frame of mind before you can tell whether it's even there or not?

Rolfe, DBT's reveal that, it is not imediately apparent. Specially when you are inmersed in a world of audiophiles. He said he was not familiar with DBT's. Maybe, if he is really doubting now, which Im not sure, its because he did at least a BT, and in that condition it was not easy to "pick the winner".

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Rolfe
...Something not right about all this. Come on, Wellfed. Explain to me why I should consider shelling out money for something which makes such an imperceptible difference that you have to be in just the right frame of mind before you can tell whether it's even there or not?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, first off all let me state, I am not trying to sell the GSIC device to anyone.

The degree to which audiophiles will go to improve the sound that emanates from their systems mystifies even other audiophiles. Roy Orbison is going to sound like Roy Orbison whether listening to him on a portable radio or on the most impressive sound system ever developed. We spend a considerable amount of time and money improving aspects of performance that are important to some, yet inconsequential to others. Even amongst audiophiles there is great debate over what constitutes improvement and even if this is established there is debate over the law of diminishing returns with our purchases.

I think many audiophiles soon discover that there is a wealth of nuance on our recordings and it becomes a goal to extract as much of that information as we possibly can. We become very attuned to how our systems are performing and the very slightest of changes can make a big difference in how we perceive the sound.

The problem, I think, really lies in how easily this sensitivity can be disturbed by external events. I think this is the reason that many people find the use of alcohol or marijuana enhances their listening enjoyment. These substances, for some, tend to filter out distractions, allowing more of the musical nuance to be observed and appreciated. This enjoyment can actually be quite profound at times even though the cause may appear to be quite insignifcant.

I am simply looking for an environment where my senses are completely on the task of discerning differences and not disturbed by any other influence. It seems to me after casually studying up on DBT's that sensitivity to subtlety is a readily accepted phenomenon. I imagine there is a parallel here somewhere.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Rolfe, DBT's reveal that, it is not imediately apparent. Specially when you are inmersed in a world of audiophiles. He said he was not familiar with DBT's. Maybe, if he is really doubting now, which Im not sure, its because he did at least a BT, and in that condition it was not easy to "pick the winner".

I have not yet done any blind testing on myself. My intention is to do so by next weekend.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I have not yet done any blind testing on myself. My intention is to do so by next weekend.

Please keep us posted, it is an interesting test.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Please keep us posted, it is an interesting test.

I spoke with Kramer a short while ago and it appears that Steven Howard's protocol is what we will be using in some form. This is the model for the self testing I planned to do next weekend so things are looking pretty good.

It also appears that the testing can be done in my home with minimal expense. I think Kramer and I both left our conversation believing things are going to go pretty smoothly from here on out.

After Kramer reviews Steven's protocol and submits it to Mr. Randi I expect it will be again be posted for opinions here at the Forum.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I spoke with Kramer a short while ago and it appears that Steven Howard's protocol is what we will be using in some form. This is the model for the self testing I planned to do next weekend so things are looking pretty good.

It also appears that the testing can be done in my home with minimal expense. I think Kramer and I both left our conversation believing things are going to go pretty smoothly from here on out.

After Kramer reviews Steven's protocol and submits it to Mr. Randi I expect it will be again be posted for opinions here at the Forum.

This is good news.

[IXP]

Originally posted by IXP

[snip]
I would even go so far as to allow you to capture and analyze the digital data from the disc, examine it with a microscope, or hold a pendulum or diviing rod over the disc!
IXP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jmercer
Not a good idea, IMHO. Nor should there be a lack of an observer.

Right, I am a little worried about the pendulum or divining rod approach as well. :D

But seriously: Unless the GSIC device actually has some physical effect on the disc it would make no difference. This is why I suggested using an expired GSIC for the control (they expire after a preset number of treatments.) There is no way an active vs. an expired GSIC will leave a distiguishable effect on the disc.

IXP

[Timothy]

Originally posted by IXP
This is why I suggested using an expired GSIC for the control (they expire after a preset number of treatments.)
I agree, having suggesting it back on 3/11 in order to minimize the potential for fraud.

- Timothy

[TjW]

Originally posted by Timothy
I agree, having suggesting it back on 3/11 in order to minimize the potential for fraud.

- Timothy

Unfortunately, there has been speculation over on the Audio Asylum board that they don'tt expire after exactly the number of advertised uses.
In the event of a failure , this could lead to a claim along the lines of "Well of course I couldn't tell the difference -- they were both treated".

[Beth]

Originally posted by IXP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But seriously: Unless the GSIC device actually has some physical effect on the disc it would make no difference. This is why I suggested using an expired GSIC for the control (they expire after a preset number of treatments.) There is no way an active vs. an expired GSIC will leave a distiguishable effect on the disc.

IXP

If I were the claimant, I would have a problem with using an expired device. The expiration is given as a guarantee that it will not fail prior to that number of discs being treated, not that it will automatically fail after that many have been treated. Assuming that it does do something to the discs, it's reasonable to assume that an expired GSIC devise could still continue to affect discs. Thus, unless there is some way to verify that the expired device is no longer affecting the discs, the claimant may object to such a protocol.

Beth

[Timothy]

Originally posted by TjW
Unfortunately, there has been speculation over on the Audio Asylum board that they don'tt expire after exactly the number of advertised uses.
In the event of a failure , this could lead to a claim along the lines of "Well of course I couldn't tell the difference -- they were both treated".
Which is why I suggested doing the treatment at least three times over the stated life. If the applicant doesn't like that, do it five or ten times. Or, prior to the test, have him watch while a purportedly "used up" chip treats a disc, and a "fresh" chip treats another disc and have him verify that he can hear the difference.

I'm quite looking forward to the results of Mr. Anda's self-administered DBT!

- Timothy

[KRAMER]

Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it.

Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anda this morning. It was a very nice chat. He informed me that June would be fine, and asked if we could resume protocol negotiations now. I said YES, and we exhanged some emails. Go to his thread in CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS to see where it all wound up.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it.

Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anda this morning. It was a very nice chat. He informed me that June would be fine, and asked if we could resume protocol negotiations now. I said YES, and we exhanged some emails. Go to his thread in CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS to see where it all wound up.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?

Hm... I've always gotten the impression from his postings that Mr. Anda was being honest about his intentions to test. I have to say, though, after reading the latest CHALLENGE updates, I'm now neutral on that - and perhaps leaning a bit on the skeptical side, in fact. Time will tell.

And for the record, I still don't like the "no observers" part of the protocol, if that's still on the table for discussion.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hm... I've always gotten the impression from his postings that Mr. Anda was being honest about his intentions to test. I have to say, though, after reading the latest CHALLENGE updates, I'm now neutral on that - and perhaps leaning a bit on the skeptical side, in fact. Time will tell.

And for the record, I still don't like the "no observers" part of the protocol, if that's still on the table for discussion.

Well, things didn't quite turn out as smoothly as Kramer or I had hoped. It would have been good for Kramer to have interleaved my correspondence with his from today to show precisely what took place. But, in any case, I think there is now a clear understanding as to what needs to take place to make this test happen in a timely manner. The ball is clearly in my court and I believe I have a full understanding of what the process will entail from here on out.

I will be doing my own DBT sometime next week, presumably on the weekend, and will report my results on Monday April 11th, or sooner. At that time I will be in contact with the recommended local observer to set up a test for August 2005. Assuming I pass the preliminary testing, the final testing should occur in August as well. This will all depend on the observers availibility.

Once test dates are scheduled I am to contact JREF with the dates and a protocol proposal. This protocol will match very closely that laid out by Steven Howard. As is customary the proposed protocol will be posted here along with JREF commentary. It is my hope that the protocol will be established quickly. After we agree to a protocol I expect the matter to be finalized with no further protocol discussion. Once I agree to a protocol I will absolutely not make any ammendment requests. I hope the same would be true for JREF as well.

If I am overlooking anything please be sure to let me know.

Here is the unammended protocol proposed by Steven Howard. Issues requiring ammendment or consideration follow.

______________________________________________

Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.

The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim ("I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment") and not the second version ("I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different").

Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The "real device")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The "dummy device")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.

People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).

The setup:

Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.

Demonstration:

A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.

The experiment:

The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:

In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.

Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.

T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.

After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.

What do you think?

______________________________________________

I will require a reference disc, not treated with the GSIC device, to use for A-B-A... comparisons with the subject disc from each iteration. Number of discs swaps will only be limited by the time allowed for this testing.

I would like no observers in the room as I make my determinations if at all possible. If this is deemed impractical, suggestions are welcomed to try and minimize the effect an observer (T2) may have on my concentration level.

The time required to perform these iterations will need to be established. I suggest two 2 hour sessions with a break of 1 hour in between. 5 hours total testing time including break. 10 hours total for preliminary and final testing.

A contingency plan will need to be established in the event of a tube failure.

Sourcing of test discs needs to be established. I will look into the feasibility of using burned copies vs. original copies.

Any restriction of audio accessory use will need to be dealt with in the protocol.

I want to review the record here at JREF Forums for any previous commentary on this protocol methodology to determine if I am forgetting any unacceptable element. I don't recall any at this point. I will be sure to do this over the next few days.

If things play out as I've outlined, we should have completed the process within 4.5 months assuming preliminary testing occurs in early August and final testing prior to August 15th. Again this will be dependent on the observers availibility at that time.

Edited for clarification.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Timothy
Which is why I suggested doing the treatment at least three times over the stated life. If the applicant doesn't like that, do it five or ten times. Or, prior to the test, have him watch while a purportedly "used up" chip treats a disc, and a "fresh" chip treats another disc and have him verify that he can hear the difference.

I'm quite looking forward to the results of Mr. Anda's self-administered DBT!

- Timothy

I have a spent chip that can be used for this purpose. I will be sure that it has been completely discharged with all responsibility for this falling on me.

[jj]

Originally posted by jmercer
And for the record, I still don't like the "no observers" part of the protocol, if that's still on the table for discussion.

You have to have a neutral observer.

Having a person move back and forth between the two rooms is a potential leak (assuming good faith, please, let alone bad faith), and I'd not have that.

Having a person to interact between tester and subject is necessary, but you have to avoid having any information leak from the tester to the in-between person. Yes, this can really happen in a purely honest setting.

It would be better for the tester to write down the sequence of yes/no that woudl be used, seal it and give it to a neutral party who isn't in sight of either, then run the test as described, with the go-between knowing only "ok start again".

[jj]

I also have to point out that 10 of 10 happens 1/1024 of the time.

I would be happy with 10/10 for PREQUALIFICATION.

That is not sufficient for actual verification.

[Wellfed]

I just remembered one condition I requested earlier regarding the Steven Howard proposal. I desire to have an observer of my own in the room with T1 to verify whether an active or placebo GSIC is being used for each iteration of the test.

[Beth]

Originally posted by jj
You have to have a neutral observer.

Actually, I'm not sure that it's necessary in this case. Why could not the discs be treated and identified in some fashion (A, B, C, etc.) then given to the claimant. He tests them at his leisure and later provides a listing as to which discs have been treated (i.e. A- treated, B-untreated, C-untreated, etc.). As long as the claimant is blinded to the which discs were treated and which were not, why is an observer needed?

Beth

[jj]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I just remembered one condition I requested earlier regarding the Steven Howard proposal. I desire to have an observer of my own in the room with T1 to verify whether an active or placebo GSIC is being used for each iteration of the test.

T1 ought to be a single neutral person trusted by all.

And there shouldn't be anyone else around, on anybody's side.

The more people, the more problems with both accidental and deliberate leakage.

I think the solution somebody else offered, of taking 10 discs, "treating" five of them, and sending them off, after recording which discs were which, is much safer. A completely separate third party can do the treating and keep the answer key.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I just remembered one condition I requested earlier regarding the Steven Howard proposal. I desire to have an observer of my own in the room with T1 to verify whether an active or placebo GSIC is being used for each iteration of the test.


Wellfed,
This is an important part of the double blind aspect of the testing. You can have no contact of any kind with a person, either on your side, or the side of the JREF, who knows whether the GSIC being used is the active one or the placebo. If someone in the room knows which one is in use, they can, even unintentionally, provide hints. It can happen subconciously, even if the person is deliberately trying not to let on. Whatever protocol is eventually settled on, this is one thing that will be iron clad.

About having an observer in the room... do you never listen with a second person in the room? Sometimes a friend or fellow audiophile enthusiast? What is the difference? This "observer" will not be hanging over your shoulder or anything, and I'm sure they will be quite a friendly sort...
:)

[Winny]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
This is an important part of the double blind aspect of the testing. You can have no contact of any kind with a person, either on your side, or the side of the JREF, who knows whether the GSIC being used is the active one or the placebo.


I think that Wellfed wants his observer to hang out with T1 while the CDs are chipped(?). As Wellfed will have no contact with either T1 *or* his observer until after the test is concluded, I don't see that it's a problem.

cheers

Winny

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Winny
I think that Wellfed wants his observer to hang out with T1 while the CDs are chipped(?). As Wellfed will have no contact with either T1 *or* his observer until after the test is concluded, I don't see that it's a problem.

cheers

Winny

Thanks for your input, that is exactly the way I perceive the matter.

Correction:

My observer would be in the separate room with T1. T1's function is to flip a coin to determine whether the active GSIC or the placebo GSIC is to be selected for the given iteration. T1 does not get involved with the actual treatment step.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hm... I've always gotten the impression from his postings that Mr. Anda was being honest about his intentions to test. I have to say, though, after reading the latest CHALLENGE updates, I'm now neutral on that - and perhaps leaning a bit on the skeptical side, in fact. Time will tell.

And for the record, I still don't like the "no observers" part of the protocol, if that's still on the table for discussion. I have no doubt that Mr. Anda started out as sincere. He was really shure he could hear a difference. However, he now realizes he is on thin ice. He is realizing that failing the challenge will make him look like a fool. He is realizing that he may have deluded himself.

Now, he could choose to say something like: "Well, all this is very subjective, and I might have been wrong. I don't feel certain, so I withdraw my application." This would be an honorable thing to do. Especially if he followed it up by ceasing to publish unconditional endorsings of products based on subjective experiences.

However, such a step might hurt his carreer in the audiopholly environment, so I'm afraid we will instead see endless bickering about protocol, ending in a stalemate, and Mr. Anda claiming that the JREF would not allow him to show his abilities in a sensible way.

Same procedure as ever :rolleyes:.

Hans

[IXP]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Thanks for your input, that is exactly the way I perceive the matter.

Correction:

My observer would be in the separate room with T1. T1's function is to flip a coin to determine whether the active GSIC or the placebo GSIC is to be selected for the given iteration. T1 does not get involved with the actual treatment step.

I don't think this should be allowed, particularly if the test is to be performed in Mr Anda's house. There are a number of ways the two of them could conspire to signal whether the GSIC or the placebo was chosen.

IXP

[IXP]

Wellfed,

I understand why you would want to observer with T1 in order to ensure that T1 does not cheat by recording the decisions incorrectly. But, as I just pointed out, having your own observer watch him opens up the possibility of signalling the decisions to you.

I would suggest a change the the protocol that makes this unnecessary.

1. You supply 10 active GSICs and 10 expired GSICs (clearly marked as to which they are), and 10 discs.

2. The testers supply 10 envelopes which can be sealed in such a way that they cannot be opened without destroying them.

3. T1 numbers the envelopes and each of you sign them on the outside to ensure that they cannot be swapped.

2. T1, in another room out of your sight, randomly places either an active or expired GSIC in each envelope, seals it, and he records all of his choices and seals this in another envelope. During this period you are in another room with T2.

3. T1 brings the envelopes to T2 in the listening room.

4. For each test, T2 takes the envelope for that test, shows it to you so you can verify the number and see signatures, then places it on the CD player and treats the corresponding disc.

5. T1 leaves the room with all of the envelopes and allows you to make your determination. You may swap the test disc and any other discs you want for comparisons.

6. When you are done, you call T2 back into the room, then he records your guess and you sign next to it.

7. When you are done with all of the tests, you open the envelopes and check against the determinations you made and T2 recorded. You also check them against T1's list to make sure no tampering has occurred. If your list correctly identifies active or expired GSIC for each envelope, then you have succeeded. If any are wrong you have failed.

IXP

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by IXP
I don't think this should be allowed, particularly if the test is to be performed in Mr Anda's house. There are a number of ways the two of them could conspire to signal whether the GSIC or the placebo was chosen.

IXP

Thanks for your input. Any thoughts on how to recruit neutral testers, T1 & T2?

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by IXP
Wellfed,

I understand why you would want to observer with T1 in order to ensure that T1 does not cheat by recording the decisions incorrectly. But, as I just pointed out, having your own observer watch him opens up the possibility of signalling the decisions to you.

I would suggest a change the the protocol that makes this unnecessary.

1. You supply 10 active GSICs and 10 expired GSICs (clearly marked as to which they are), and 10 discs.

2. The testers supply 10 envelopes which can be sealed in such a way that they cannot be opened without destroying them.

3. T1 numbers the envelopes and each of you sign them on the outside to ensure that they cannot be swapped.

2. T1, in another room out of your sight, randomly places either an active or expired GSIC in each envelope, seals it, and he records all of his choices and seals this in another envelope. During this period you are in another room with T2.

3. T1 brings the envelopes to T2 in the listening room.

4. For each test, T2 takes the envelope for that test, shows it to you so you can verify the number and see signatures, then places it on the CD player and treats the corresponding disc.

5. T1 leaves the room with all of the envelopes and allows you to make your determination. You may swap the test disc and any other discs you want for comparisons.

6. When you are done, you call T2 back into the room, then he records your guess and you sign next to it.

7. When you are done with all of the tests, you open the envelopes and check against the determinations you made and T2 recorded. You also check them against T1's list to make sure no tampering has occurred. If your list correctly identifies active or expired GSIC for each envelope, then you have succeeded. If any are wrong you have failed.

IXP

Seems like a good, but somewhat spendy way to proceed. It would be worth the cost however for the peace of mind.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I have no doubt that Mr. Anda started out as sincere.

Thank you, I don't think that my sincerity has changed in the least.


He was really shure he could hear a difference.

Still do.


However, he now realizes he is on thin ice. He is realizing that failing the challenge will make him look like a fool. He is realizing that he may have deluded himself.

Faulty assumption.


Now, he could choose to say something like: "Well, all this is very subjective, and I might have been wrong. I don't feel certain, so I withdraw my application."

There is nothing subjective about my claim.


This would be an honorable thing to do. Especially if he followed it up by ceasing to publish unconditional endorsings of products based on subjective experiences.

This is called putting the cart before the horse. I am about to test myself to see whether or not I have the ability to pass a version of Steven Howard's protocol suggestion.


However, such a step might hurt his carreer in the audiopholly environment, so I'm afraid we will instead see endless bickering about protocol, ending in a stalemate, and Mr. Anda claiming that the JREF would not allow him to show his abilities in a sensible way.

I am not involved with audio in any way other than as a hobbyist. I think that Steven Howard has offered up a sensible protocol. I would greatly prefer to use my last protocol proposal which I did feel totally comfortable with and was agreeable to starting with this protocol in June. In Kramer's words "That's not going to happen". If you search the record you will see that Kramer was agreeable to this protocol in a preliminary sense for awhile. No reason was given to me for rejecting it. There have been a lot of ins and outs to this whole affair.

Escape portal alert:

While I have agreed to pursuing the Steven Howard proposal, and will do so with my whole heart, I do have a certain amount of chagrin over my previous proposal being dismissed out of hand with no explanation offered.


Same procedure as ever :rolleyes:.

Yes, this whole business seems to be confusing and less than optimal for all parties involved. That said, hopefully we are on a track that will work for everyone.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I just remembered one condition I requested earlier regarding the Steven Howard proposal. I desire to have an observer of my own in the room with T1 to verify whether an active or placebo GSIC is being used for each iteration of the test.

Lemme get this straight, just out of curiosity:

You want your own observer at the test so that you can be sure that WE'RE not cheating?

I'm beginning to think that you deserve your own episode on Penn & Teller's B*LLSH*T.

p.s. I'm betting this will never result in a test, but in the remote chance that it does, your "observer" is perfectly welcome to view the proceedings.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I have not yet done any blind testing on myself. My intention is to do so by next weekend. You realize, don't you, that until you have passed your very own test, your claim is firmly in the category of those who are abducted by alien spacecraft every Saturday night? Pure fantasy? Self delusion? Gullible hogwash?

Why are you risking your neck before performing even the simpliest scientific test?

Get some friends together and do it right. You might be surprised and learn something.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Lemme get this straight, just out of curiosity:

You want your own observer at the test so that you can be sure that WE'RE not cheating?

I'm beginning to think that you deserve your own episode on Penn & Teller's B*LLSH*T.

p.s. I'm betting this will never result in a test, but in the remote chance that it does, your "observer" is perfectly welcome to view the proceedings.

Thank you, FYI there is at least one here, besides myself, that considers this to be an understandable and reasonable request.

Now a question for you; Why was my preferred protocol rejected out of hand? I was never given any explanation for this. Since you see fit to question much of what I say or request, I feel entitlement to question some of your actions, or SHOULD I say maneuvers?

Since you've established that personal barbs and psychological observations are acceptable practice around here; Here's an observation for you.

You seem to be practicing what psychologists refer to as projection. Check out the definition below for "projection" from Answers.com

8. Psychology.

1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection—of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field� (Alex Shoumatoff).
2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.


Given the history of our discussion, I too feel entitled to expressing my opinion. You've earned it.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
You realize, don't you, that until you have passed your very own test, your claim is firmly in the category of those who are abducted by alien spacecraft every Saturday night? Pure fantasy? Self delusion? Gullible hogwash?

Why are you risking your neck before performing even the simpliest scientific test?

Get some friends together and do it right. You might be surprised and learn something.

Thanks Sherman, I have plans to do so this coming week.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Thanks Sherman, I have plans to do so this coming week. Excellent. I anxiously await the results.

I know my post came off as slightly snarky, but underneath is a very serious point. If I had a claim which sounded preposterous to a group of respected experts in a field in which I was not, and I wanted to win some serious money, I would do as many tests on myself as possible before making a formal claim to assure that my claim had real merit.

One reason would be to avoid appearing a fool and wasting not only my time, but that of others. I would even go to the trouble of accepting a sample protocol from them -- after all, this is their field -- for some of my tests. If I found that protocol #1 produced radically different results from #2, I would seriously consider that the protocol might be what was making the difference and examine why.

And if you repeatedly pass the test with the suggested protocol, it should be duck soup to pass the same test just one more time, so consider it a rehearsal.

As I said, I applaud your decision to test yourself and anxiously await your results.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by Sherman Bay
Excellent. I anxiously await the results.

I know my post came off as slightly snarky, but underneath is a very serious point. If I had a claim which sounded preposterous to a group of respected experts in a field in which I was not, and I wanted to win some serious money, I would do as many tests on myself as possible before making a formal claim to assure that my claim had real merit.

One reason would be to avoid appearing a fool and wasting not only my time, but that of others. I would even go to the trouble of accepting a sample protocol from them -- after all, this is their field -- for some of my tests. If I found that protocol #1 produced radically different results from #2, I would seriously consider that the protocol might be what was making the difference and examine why.

And if you repeatedly pass the test with the suggested protocol, it should be duck soup to pass the same test just one more time, so consider it a rehearsal.

As I said, I applaud your decision to test yourself and anxiously await your results.

Your posting came off fine and I could easily see your sincerity. The pieces have fallen into place for testing next week, presumably on the weekend when I can find help.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Once test dates are scheduled I am to contact JREF with the dates and a protocol proposal.

Wrong: The Protocol is determined and agreed upon in writing, and THEN the test date and place is determined. THEN Randi sends you a copy of your application with his signature on it, and we're ready to rock.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Wellfed
Given the history of our discussion, I too feel entitled to expressing my opinion. You've earned it.

Like one's civil rights, one can hardly EARN what is already rightfully theirs.

BY all means, Michael. Speak your mind.

After all, this IS the USA.*

Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:

In a sincere effort to address your accusations regarding my "maneuverings" succinctly and in a manner that will put your mind to rest over the JREF's motives, such as you erroneously perceive them, I decided after reading your most recent post to waltz into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol in hand.

The "Steven Howard Protocol" proposal has been officially approved by James Randi, without any changes or amendments whatsoever. From this point forward in the application process, NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE without the mutual agreement of both parties.

What say you now, Grasshopper?

Remember, Michael: Adversaries, not Enemies. Don't use what you perceive as JREF's bias as an escape portal. They'll laugh you out of town if you do. You might even find yourself tarred and feathered for good measure.

Remember also that if you successfully demonstrate your claim, you've got a lifetime's worth of apologies from me forthcoming.

It may not make you feel any better, but it's in the mail anyway, like it or not, should you pass the preliminary test.

We've had some good conversations, Michael. Let's not watch everything crash and burn now.

I'm now posting the protocol on your Challenge thread for all to view.

========================================

*I much prefer the Mamet version of this line (from HOUSE OF GAMES), which says, "This is the United States of Kiss My Ass."

Man, I love that line.

But, I digress.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Like one's civil rights, one can hardly EARN what is already rightfully theirs.

BY all means, Michael. Speak your mind.

After all, this IS the USA.*

Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:

In a sincere effort to address your accusations regarding my "maneuverings" succinctly and in a manner that will put your mind to rest over the JREF's motives, such as you erroneously perceive them, I decided after reading your most recent post to waltz into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol in hand.

The "Steven Howard Protocol" proposal has been officially approved by James Randi, without any changes or amendments whatsoever. From this point forward in the application process, NO CHANGES MAY BE MADE without the mutual agreement of both parties.

What say you now, Grasshopper?

Remember, Michael: Adversaries, not Enemies. Don't use what you perceive as JREF's bias as an escape portal. They'll laugh you out of town if you do. You might even find yourself tarred and feathered for good measure.

Remember also that if you successfully demonstrate your claim, you've got a lifetime's worth of apologies from me forthcoming.

It may not make you feel any better, but it's in the mail anyway, like it or not, should you pass the preliminary test.

We've had some good conversations, Michael. Let's not watch everything crash and burn now.

I'm now posting the protocol on your Challenge thread for all to view.

========================================

*I much prefer the Mamet version of this line (from HOUSE OF GAMES), which says, "This is the United States of Kiss My Ass."

Man, I love that line.

But, I digress.

Your propensity to selectively read, and selectively listen, makes this process exceedingly difficult. You should know full well by now that I have never agreed to the Steven Howard Protocol without some ammendments. You know full well that I prefer a different protocol altogether. Note my use of the word prefer. I have never expected anything but mutual agreement over the protocol, what rational person wouldn't.

I entered into this process naively believing that both parties would negotiate in good faith. I will simply allow the record here at JREF to speak to this matter. And I will also simply allow the record to illuminate exactly which party leaves the appearance of seeking an "escape portal". I have faith that any honest evaluation of the complete record would easily establish the truth of the matter. Truth is our objective is it not?

And yes, we've had some good conversations, I had naively hoped, regardless of the outcome of the testing, that we'd develop a mutual respect for one another. I naively believed that we might develop rapport and have the opportunity to dine together every few years down on Las Olas Boulevard . Chicken Puff Pie over at Mango's sounds fabulous as does their Split Pea soup when available. Perhaps we CAN find a way to overcome our difficulties, nothing would make me happier than for my little fantasy to come to pass. Nothing would please me more than for ALL of this ill will and suspicion to come to an abrupt end.

Please let me know when negotiation over the Steven Howard Protocol ammendments can begin. An explanation as to why my last protocol suggestion was deemed unacceptable would also help restore my faith in the integrity of the Randi Challenge and its administrators.

[Wellfed]

This is an accidental posting, I must have clicked the wrong button while attempting to edit my last posting.

[webfusion]

Please let me know when negotiation over the Steven Howard Protocol ammendments can begin.

July. Read your eMail.

[Wellfed]

Originally posted by webfusion
July. Read your eMail.

Which one?

[prewitt81]

Originally Posted by Wellfed on 04-01-2005 02:47 PM
While I have agreed to pursuing the Steven Howard proposal, and will do so with my whole heart, I do have a certain amount of chagrin over my previous proposal being dismissed out of hand with no explanation offered.

Originally Posted by Wellfed on 04-02-2005 04:21 PM
Your propensity to selectively read, and selectively listen, makes this process exceedingly difficult. You should know full well by now that I have never agreed to the Steven Howard Protocol without some ammendments.

Am I the only one that feels like I'm taking crazy pills?

:wink8:

[webfusion]

You wrote to the JREF Challenge Admin.:
Kramer,

One other note, my 30th high-school reunion is coming up this summer. I haven’t heard dates yet, but I would definitely like to avoid any notoriety at least until after this event. I would like to avoid all notoriety completely if possible. What kind of time frame is typical to iron out the protocol, do the preliminary testing, and assuming I pass, do the final testing? I would like to see the final testing take place Aug. 1, 2005 or later.
- Michael

To which you got the following two replies:

Michael,

We were working under the assumption that we shared an interest in testing this claim expeditiously.

Let's just pick this up again in July, at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you then.

-Kramer, JREF

and another, after you said, "when can we talk protocols?"

"July would be a good time to reach me."

-Kramer, JREF


OK <<<< so now, where are we?
You don't want to do this now, that is clear.
You have personal reasons which make you uncomfortable doing it now, that is clear.
You submitted a new protocol, had it accepted by Mr Randi, and now you wish to open negotiations over that protocol which you yourself sent (you sent it, right?).
You are uncomfortable? Over what, specifically?
If you can do what you claim, that protocol is excellent, simple, and offers everyone a situation of getting through the preliminary with no fuss, no muss.

This preliminary can be finished next week. It should be a snap to pass. Why wait? Just do it.
Over the summer, you can go to your reunion and keep a low profile and set up those finals in August and collect your million. Personally, I would want to have the million in hand before showing up at my class reunion ("Oh man, you beat Randi, you ROCK !!!")

But that's just me.