AUDIO TWEAKS AND THE DOUBLE BLIND TEST CULT

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by Ashles
Could any of our audio experts tell me if optical signal to noise ratio is a particular problem in CDs?
I looked it up on the internet and, interestingly, most of the results were trying to sell me something.

I certainly do not qualify as an audio expert, but I did find something on google about it.

My understanding is as follows:

"Optical signal to noise ratio" describes the quality of optical amplifiers.

If data is transmitted by light the signal needs to be enforced after a certain distance (much like using conventional electrons and wires). The devices doing the amplifying transform the light-signal into an electric signal, amplify that and - in most cases - convert back to light. It is here, where the original data can be tainted with "noise". (which, apparently is referred to as "Amplified Spontaneus Emission")

One source i found said that an optical amplifier is needed every 60 to 120km. (German site (http://www.itwissen.info/index.php?id=31&aoid=9747))

I do not think that the average stereo-systems contains enough fibre-optic to reach such length...

And, of course, none of this has anything to do with reading data from the CD. Again, it is possible that low quality systems or old CDs have difficulties reading the data that is on the CD and that there exists a certain error rate. But again modern systems do not have this kind of problem and it does not require any amount of magic to fix it. I cannot imagine any self-respecting audiophile using a system that would still encounter such errors, anyway.

Rasmus.

[jj]

Originally posted by trainman
So, I have an important question for JREF - and if the administrator watches the debate, I would like to see his answer: Is the bi-wiring effect pseudoscientific or paranormal? Does the 1 million dollar challenge stand for it, too? I

(sorry to break silence, but I sense a sneak here)

Some few varieties of bi-wiring do have some small technical justification.

The audibility of such issues is not in question, and involves absolutely no supernatural cause.

As to your mention of biamplifying, you're dead wrong. There are clear, obvious, and well-understood reasons to bi-amplify that have been known since the 1950s, involving low-level crossovers. These issues remain as true as they have been since they were first done.

Your summaries of the issues, as usual, remain nonsensical and uninformed, as well as insulting to the real expert and denigrating of the real science of audio.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by force_redo
1.2) If they invented it by chance (as in: they wanted to invent something else) and they left it accidentally on their cd player and it improved the sound, and they have no concept how it works, how can you make it work for only 10 "treatments"?Never mind that, if they had no idea how or why it worked, how could they possibly know whether or not it did work without carrying out blinded tests?

But welcome, force_redo.



And great first post.

[Paulhoff]

Rasmus

“If data is transmitted by light the signal needs to be enforced after a certain distance (much like using conventional electrons and wires). The devices doing the amplifying transform the light-signal into an electric signal, amplify that and - in most cases - convert back to light. It is here, where the original data can be tainted with "noise". (Which, apparently is referred to as "Amplified Spontaneous Emission")�

In one word, NO.

The great advantage of digital is that you can reform it and send it on its way in it's origial form. It is not like analog where each stage of amplifying adds noise to the single.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
It is as good as this logic.

1. Witches Burn.
2. Wood Burns.
3. Wood Floats.
4. Ducks Float.
5. Therefore... The logic goes: that if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch and they can burn her. :p

Paul

:) :) :) Or build a bridge out of her!

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mojo
But welcome, force_redo.



And great first post. Amen that!

[Paulhoff]

Hi force_redo

Not to offend you, but you do know that there is a big different between BI-wiring and BI-amping, but I do not mean a big different in sound.

Paul

:) :) :)

[BPSCG]

Got the GSIC today, in a plain brown envelope (I was hoping it was porn, but...).

Won't be able to test it immediately, as we're going out of town for a week, but it'll be at the top of my list of things to do when we get back. I promise to put up results of my first semi-DBT (thanks, jj, for the protocol suggestion) by August 27 or I'm Madeliene Albright's uglier sister.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Got the GSIC today, in a plain brown envelope (I was hoping it was porn, but...).Ah, well...

You're bound to get something useful sooner or later.

ETA: Oops! Fallacy!

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
[B]Rasmus

“If data is transmitted by light the signal needs to be enforced after a certain distance (much like using conventional electrons and wires). The devices doing the amplifying transform the light-signal into an electric signal, amplify that and - in most cases - convert back to light. It is here, where the original data can be tainted with "noise". (Which, apparently is referred to as "Amplified Spontaneous Emission")�

In one word, NO.

*LOL*

The great advantage of digital is that you can reform it and send it on its way in it's origial form.

Certainly.

It is not like analog where each stage of amplifying adds noise to the single.

Definitely not. I assumed that digital data still needs analog signals; and that those can create errors. So on a very low, technical level I would not be suprised to learn that devices would sometimes create such errors. I would, however, be outraged to learn that any system does not accomodate for these possible errors and correct them accordingly.

I doubt I am making myself clear here ....

anyway, it is totally besides the point since even if the phenomenon did exist, it would just not occur in a CD player.

Rasmus.

[jj]

Originally posted by Rasmus
Definitely not. I assumed that digital data still needs analog signals; and that those can create errors. So on a very low, technical level I would not be suprised to learn that devices would sometimes create such errors. I would, however, be outraged to learn that any system does not accomodate for these possible errors and correct them accordingly.


There are two parts to a "digital" signal. One is that things happen at discrete times, and the other is that signals are sent as discrete levels. In audio, this "digital" signal is a DIGITAL ANALOG. The whole "analog/digital" dichotomy is based on some folks not knowing what an analog was in the first place.

Therefore, at each "reconstruction" the original level and relative time can be fully restored.

It is this KNOWN part about digital transmission that means that it can be restored to exactly what it started as.

The difference to what is commonly called "analog" is that analog has no fixed transition time, ergo that can not be fixed, and no fixed transition levels, so they can not be fixed.

There are analog systems that sample (i.e. invoke the fixed-time part) but do not quantize (i.e. no fixed levels), and there are also analog systems (rarer, but they do exist) that quantize (i.e. fixed levels) but do not sample. Neither of those can be fully restored.


anyway, it is totally besides the point since even if the phenomenon did exist, it would just not occur in a CD player.

Rasmus.

Well, yeah. This GSIC thing looked bad at first, and continues to slide in my estimation.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well I can't speak for the JREF, but I would have thought so.

Especially as it has actually already failed proper testing.

BTW you are falling repeatedly into the 'appeal to popularity' style of argument.

Millions of people believe in Reflexology, God, Homeopathy, UFOs, Angels, Allah, Crystal Healing, Magnet Therapy, Penta Water, Psychic Detectives...

Do you believe in all of those as you do bi-wiring?

People will believe in loads of things without any evidence at all. This is undeniable fact.
It doesn't mean there is a shred of proof to their beliefs.

Trainman, I suggest you hurry to your wonderful grand conclusion.
The sooner you're finshed on this thread, the sooner your hole will stop getting deeper.

As a former RADAR technician with the equivilent of a Masters in EE (though through the military, yup... the USMC is not a bunch of card/box switchers) and an audiophile, I can tell you that bi-wiring will pass the double blind listening test on some systems and for very good engineering reasons. I have such a system and invite any member in the DFW, TX, USA area over for a demonstration. (btw, I agree that trainman is completely insane and has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about and many of things that many of the audiophiles believe is completely rediculous)

For a simple bi-wire installation to be sonically noticable, several conditions need to be met.
1) The amplifier need to be able to generate VERY HIGH current for short periods of time. (Say 50 amps per channel)
2) A very good percussion recording
3) An excellent speaker.

The math/engineering....

Lets say you have a speaker that is 'nominally' 4 ohms, what does that mean? It means that is the typical load that it presents to the amplier. It could be as high 16 ohms at resonate freqency of a tuned/ported bass enclosure (ported bass enclosures are evil in my opinion but that is another story). The impedance can also drop below a half ohm in certain circumstances.

When can a speaker drop below a half ohm of impedance and why? The very low impedance happens for the first quarter cycle of a tranient spike (a powerful percussion strike for example). This happens because before the percussion strike, the drivers (especially the woofer(s)) are sitting motionless. When the large electrical spike of the first quarter cycle arrives the drivers draw massive amounts of current trying to accelerate from a stand still to the high speed required to follow electrical wave form. Speakers are just like any other motor, and once they are in motion generate back (or inverse) EMF. This effectively lowers their impedance far below their bulk resistance. But at that initial moment, the bulk resistance is all that is seen by the amp.

A huge current draw of the woofer causes a much greater than normal drop of voltage across that speaker wire. This decreases the slope of the waveform representing the percussion attack. The rest of the drivers (mid and tweeter) get that distorted (low slew rate) signal.

Audibly, this takes some of the 'snap' off the drums.

Technically, you can take care of this without bi-wiring, if you run large enough speaker cable, but it is cheaper and easier to bi-wire. Let the woofers only distort the signal on its own run of wire.

I agree though, most systems don't have the 'guts' to make an audible difference by bi-wiring alone. Even the majority of the 'audiophile' grade systems don't. But, some of them do.

If you really listen live percussion, you will feel the attack (that very instance when the mallet/stick strikes the drum head) in your teeth and/or sternum. Very few stereos are capable of reproducing that effect. A system capable of doing that can benefit from bi-wiring, and it is audible to even casual listeners.

[Paulhoff]

Originally posted by Rasmus

I assumed that digital data still needs analog signals; and that those can create errors.

Rasmus

Think of your question this way, are you having any problems with the internet going over analog signals. This is all digital.

Paul

:) :) :)

[force_redo]

Thanks for the warm welcome.
I just have a few things to add:

@Psiload

It's been done, and they don't:

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

I'm not neccesarily known for emotional outbreaks, but:
BWAHAHAHA!

This link is a joke, is it? I mean I've read only half of it (don't have much time due to very expansive testings of bananas), but it is no less than hilarious. They should hire these guys for the explainations on the next Star Trek series (if these are still made)

Blime! I just found out that my fingers contain quantum material, too, and as soon as I stick them in my ears the sound drastically changes!

@ Paulhoff
Not to offend you, but you do know that there is a big different between BI-wiring and BI-amping, but I do not mean a big different in sound.

Yes, I do. Why? I mean I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but I can use two things: Google and common sense. (And some things I picked up during my rather unsuccesful school/uni years)


@scotth
I can tell you that bi-wiring will pass the double blind listening test on some systems and for very good engineering reasons.

Hmmm, as much as I admire your clean and comprehensible explaination, I do have to ask you whether I understood this correctly: If you use bi-wiring, both wires from one speaker run to the same terminal on your amp, right? So, effectively both wires are connected. Hence, during one of these drops in voltage that you describe, the same happens immediately (*) in the other wire, too (the one that leads to the mid & tweeters)
Therefore, the two cables act as one (thicker one).

(*) immediately as in: at the speed of light

Interesting link from a speaker manufator:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwiring_and_biamping.html

Will it sound any different if you biwire? Some users think it does, but I've never heard any differences, nor have any of our laboratory measurements or scientifically controlled double blind listening tests ever demonstrated there are audible differences. Axiom includes the extra terminals as a nod to those enthusiasts who believe that biwiring results in audible benefits and for the bi-ampers.

This answers trainman's question why speaker manufactors are selling it, too. (As already rightfully assumed by most of the forum members)

FR

[trainman]

Dear friends

Things start to be very interesting, as we get close to the grand finale:

One of us (BPSCG) is going to test the ugly chip at last - a victory for Trainman, even if the friend announces at the end that the chip is a fraud.

Another friend (Psiload) has informed us that a most respectable company like Axiom Audio denounces bi-wiring and even claims that their own DBTs have not confirmed its effect. Andycal is rough and ready to write to some loudspeaker companies asking for evidence for the bi-wiring effect. It seems plain ridiculus for Andycal, when I say that the exception of Axiom reaffirms the rule, and he comments that "this is exactly why people are getting annoyed with me". But hey, JJ "breaks his silence" again to declare that "the audibility of such issues is not in question".

Now - should I ask from JJ to explain to Axiom Audio why they are wrong (and should I say "deaf" also?), should I ask him to tell the former editor of Hi-Fi Choice that he is “nonsensical and uninformed� or should I point to Andycal the answer of JJ?

Of course, I don't demand unanimity from my audience (since I am one against all of you), but I shall not miss the opportunity to answer appropriately to people that call me "totaly ignorant" and even "totaly insane", when they disagree themselves.

At last though, I see many posts that do not bother with my decisions according to the DBT, but face my arguments - I see personal mobility to ask, to investigate.

I didn't plan my thread to last till 27 of August, but if BPSCG wishes to announce his own findings to my thread instead of making his own one, I think I can manage it.

Now, as usual, I will give some personal answers, in order on Sunday or Monday (Europe time) to pass through the second atrium with some evidence from "credible companies"!

Trainman

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
One of us (BPSCG) is going to test the ugly chip at last - a victory for Trainman, even if the friend announces at the end that the chip is a fraud. Er, given your repeatedly stated opposition to blinded testing, how exactly can the fact that someone is going to carry out a blinded test be considered a victory for you?

[trainman]

ANDYCAL: It’s fun for me too, even if I don’t actually understand what exactly you mean by the word “troll�. Anyway, I know that the trolls are some very sympathetic figures in Scandinavian mythology and I am not offended at all. As for the big Randi, he called me an “abysmally stupid� person – if you happen to agree with him, you are also “abysmally stupid� being in conversation with me. Last – asking me whether it is a game for me I answer straightforward that yes, it is a game, although a serious one. I hope it is the same for you, too.

OSSAI: There has been given no evidence from anyone here. No one has tested the chip or other tweaks himself, except me, and I have reported that I have conducted blind tests in my house with other, even more radical, tweaks, with friends, although the tests were not “scientific�, not prepared from a mathematician. You don’t believe me and you won’t believe me if I tell you that I did a DBT at home. So, if you wish so, it is my nonsense against your nonsense.
By the way, who made that “scale of credibility� from 1 to 100? Under which scientific rules – and approved by whom?

AS(H)LES: You comment that “the sooner I am finished on this thread, the sooner my hole will stop getting deeper�. My answer: Won’t you send some 5 pence coins and a banana to JBL to improve their loudspeakers? Onward defender of reason!

BPSCG: If you, (feeling sure to detect subtleties of a musical performance, your wife and your friends), cannot discern anything, you have the right even to declare that the chip is a fraud. It will be your personal experience.
I could only argue, (as I would write to Gr8wight if he would continue), that for me there is always a possibility some tweaks to act, not on the musical signal but on the human nervous system itself – and so, their action to be a priori subjective. There are people for instance that are very sensitive to mobile phones and after two minutes of talking get a headache – and others that can talk for hours. This is another matter though.
My advice: Use an old cd recording – for instance, one of those EMI cd’s that are sold nice price, since they were recorded during the ‘80s or early ‘90s. Leave the chip on the player for 4 seconds and start the serious listening at least half an hour later, as it seems that the effect progresses with time (it is not totally instant). Also, it would be good, if your system was a bit analytical (or “bright� if you wish) in order to help you discern the possible differences in sound. If you have got used with your one though, it would be better to stick with it for the test.

FORCE REDO: Welcome Force Redo and great first post, indeed.

For all of your reasonable questions about the chip and its inventors, I don’t have the slightest answer. And I admit that this is the weakest part in my strategy here. If I had though, there would be no point for discussion and Randi would not have denounced the chip as a swindle. The only thing I can tell is that Golden Sound is not alone in this matter. There are many products in audio that have received positive reviews and their effect is more easily recognized than the one of GSIC, without giving any information about how they were invented. The same stands also for the great majority of cable constructors.

To your questions, I would add another one, that I admit I am not able to answer: "Is the effect really permanent? Who guarantees that, even if the effect exists, the cd won't return to its previous condition after a year?" If I was promoting that stuff (as someone guessed here) I wouldn't think of writing about it.

It is also your right to judge that the comparisons to the cable question are not valid. I could agree only up to a point – I believe in the differences one cable can bring, and that the mind can more easily accept that “even if it is not proven, there can be some kind of physical law behind it, it only needs more measurements� – while things like GSIC border on paranormal or even to the non-existent. On the other hand though, I have to do with people that feel proud to declare that “since there is no theory to back up the phenomenon, I don’t believe that there is more than an illusion�.

What you write about connection is half-right also: With cables you have the electrical current, but you also have proximity effects, electromagnetic interferences and the hamper of inductance – powers that act without physical connection. There are also materials that illuminate themselves after you have illuminated them with a torch. I hope you get my point.

As for the cd-r’s, you were the one to say that the 8X were “digitally accurate� but not close to physical 1:1 copies and technically inferior. There are people though, that still claim that no difference can exist and my claims are “ridiculous�. It is all in the process of discussion…

“Enthusiasts� that would buy a 200$ speaker and bi-amp it?

SCOTTH: Do the loudspeaker companies include bi-wiring to their design (even for their low cost products), encumbering their customers and thus lowering their competitiveness, just for the case, one of the customers to have an amp with a huge power supply and many recordings with percussion?

If so, they must be completely insane like me!

Trainman

[scotth]

Originally posted by force_redo
@scotth


Hmmm, as much as I admire your clean and comprehensible explaination, I do have to ask you whether I understood this correctly: If you use bi-wiring, both wires from one speaker run to the same terminal on your amp, right? So, effectively both wires are connected. Hence, during one of these drops in voltage that you describe, the same happens immediately (*) in the other wire, too (the one that leads to the mid & tweeters)
Therefore, the two cables act as one (thicker one).

(*) immediately as in: at the speed of light

Interesting link from a speaker manufator:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/tips_biwiring_and_biamping.html



This answers trainman's question why speaker manufactors are selling it, too. (As already rightfully assumed by most of the forum members)

FR

Nope, you didn't understand it correctly. The voltage drop is actually across the speaker wire, not in the finals of the amp. With bi-wiring, you could drop considerable voltage across the wire driving the bass without altering the signal seen by the mids and tweeters. Using the 1/3 ohm figure somebody threw out for the speaker wire earlier in the thread (though my wire is considerably lower than that), during a 50 amp transient the wire would drop 16 volts.

I've seen that link before. All I can say is, they are wrong. Its quite possible that for their speakers, bi-wiring doesn't make any difference. In fact, it would make sense. The woofer cone mass on even their largest cabinets is quite low. And the relatively low weight of the entire cabinet exlude the possibility of large motor assemblies behind those small woofer cones. These speakers will probably not dip into a fraction of an ohm impedance at the beginning of a transient.

For that very low impedance to happen, you need to have a fairly large driver (which gives plenty of cone mass, inertia) and a heavy duty motor assembly. That is a motor assembly with heavy/low resistance wire in the voice coil and robust magnetic field to work in. The goal is to make as much of the driver impedance be reactance rather than resistance. Drivers like this are a much harder load to drive for the amplifier, but they follow the shape of the input waveform much more accurately as well.

But I can carry on about theory (and I can add quite a lot more detail to picture if you like, but it would probably best be held to a sidebar just between us if you need any more) all day, but the test is in sound. Are ya in North Texas, I can make a believer out of you in just a few minutes. Is someone else in here from North Texas that you would believe?

I really know electronics and I know physics pretty well, besides. I have designed some of my own amplifiers in the past, even. I am not fooling myself.

I am sure you would consider what I spent on my equipment an obscene amount, however.... I have spent far less than many other audiophiles that I know and have a system that outperforms theirs. That is because I understand the equipment well enough that I was able to spend my money where it really made a difference.

[scotth]

Originally posted by trainman
SCOTTH: Do the loudspeaker companies include bi-wiring to their design (even for their low cost products), encumbering their customers and thus lowering their competitiveness, just for the case, one of the customers to have an amp with a huge power supply and many recordings with percussion?

If so, they must be completely insane like me!

Trainman

Loudspeaker companies bi-wire many speaker designs that could not possibly benefit from it, because most of their customers are complete boobs and can't reasonably evaluate whether it is required or not. And then assume that a speaker that was not bi-wired was a lesser product.

So, the companies do it for a good reason. They do it to please their ignorant customers.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by scotth
As a former RADAR technician with the equivilent of a Masters in EE (though through the military, yup... the USMC is not a bunch of card/box switchers) and an audiophile, I can tell you that bi-wiring will pass the double blind listening test on some systems and for very good engineering reasons. I have such a system and invite any member in the DFW, TX, USA area over for a demonstration. (btw, I agree that trainman is completely insane and has no idea whatsoever what he is talking about and many of things that many of the audiophiles believe is completely rediculous)

For a simple bi-wire installation to be sonically noticable, several conditions need to be met.
1) The amplifier need to be able to generate VERY HIGH current for short periods of time. (Say 50 amps per channel)
2) A very good percussion recording
3) An excellent speaker.

The math/engineering....

Lets say you have a speaker that is 'nominally' 4 ohms, what does that mean? It means that is the typical load that it presents to the amplier. It could be as high 16 ohms at resonate freqency of a tuned/ported bass enclosure (ported bass enclosures are evil in my opinion but that is another story). The impedance can also drop below a half ohm in certain circumstances.

When can a speaker drop below a half ohm of impedance and why? The very low impedance happens for the first quarter cycle of a tranient spike (a powerful percussion strike for example). This happens because before the percussion strike, the drivers (especially the woofer(s)) are sitting motionless. When the large electrical spike of the first quarter cycle arrives the drivers draw massive amounts of current trying to accelerate from a stand still to the high speed required to follow electrical wave form. Speakers are just like any other motor, and once they are in motion generate back (or inverse) EMF. This effectively lowers their impedance far below their bulk resistance. But at that initial moment, the bulk resistance is all that is seen by the amp.

A huge current draw of the woofer causes a much greater than normal drop of voltage across that speaker wire. This decreases the slope of the waveform representing the percussion attack. The rest of the drivers (mid and tweeter) get that distorted (low slew rate) signal.

Audibly, this takes some of the 'snap' off the drums.

Technically, you can take care of this without bi-wiring, if you run large enough speaker cable, but it is cheaper and easier to bi-wire. Let the woofers only distort the signal on its own run of wire.

I agree though, most systems don't have the 'guts' to make an audible difference by bi-wiring alone. Even the majority of the 'audiophile' grade systems don't. But, some of them do.

If you really listen live percussion, you will feel the attack (that very instance when the mallet/stick strikes the drum head) in your teeth and/or sternum. Very few stereos are capable of reproducing that effect. A system capable of doing that can benefit from bi-wiring, and it is audible to even casual listeners. I'm not even going to pretend to understand this, but I'd be interested to hear your comments on this:

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm

(Conclusion)

We have shown that Biwiring (electrically is the same)

(IOW, Biwiring has no electrical effect if the speaker wire is properly designed for the speaker and the length of the wire, and the wire has lower series impedance than the source impedance of the power amp - both these conditions are commonly satisfied)

[Powa]

Originally posted by trainman
To your questions, I would add another one, that I admit I am not able to answer: "Is the effect really permanent? Who guarantees that, even if the effect exists, the cd won't return to its previous condition after a year?"
The thing that bothers me about you is your utter unwillingness to at least TRY to understand how CDs work. CDs returning to its previous condition? How? Do you really think that the pits on metal surface of a CD could MOVE AROUND by themselves? Wow.

[scotth]

Originally posted by trainman

What you write about connection is half-right also: With cables you have the electrical current, but you also have proximity effects, electromagnetic interferences and the hamper of inductance – powers that act without physical connection. There are also materials that illuminate themselves after you have illuminated them with a torch. I hope you get my point.

Really, go learn some physics so that you have some clue what you are talking about. Learn everything up through Maxwell's equations and then read your last post again. You'll be too embarassed to every post on this board again.

As for the cd-r’s, you were the one to say that the 8X were “digitally accurate� but not close to physical 1:1 copies and technically inferior. There are people though, that still claim that no difference can exist and my claims are “ridiculous�. It is all in the process of discussion…


Trainman

All it takes for a CD to be 'perfect' is that its data be able to be read accurately AND that the data rate be 'constant' when it is read.

Most CD players (I'll give exceptions in a minute) clock the DACs with the data. That is to say, there is no external timing device to tell the DACs when to output the next set of data and keep them beating steadily at precisely 44.1kHz. They output the next set of data as soon as it gets there. So, for best possible sound, it is important that the data on the disc be laid down 'evenly' or at a constant rate.

CD-Rs generally do a better job at recording 'evenly' when their record speed is set to lower settings. In fact, some CR-Rs making better discs at low record speeds than store bought discs.... but not by much, I've never been able to hear the difference.

The exceptions... Any portable cd player that has an anti-skip buffer will play any CD or CD-R perfectly as long as the data can be read. Since the data is read into a buffer and clocked the DAC with secondary crystal based oscillator, it doesn't matter of the disc has any data jitter or not.

There were also some high end CD players made by a now defunct company that buffered and re-clocked all the data as well. But their business went down the toilet when the big delay for DVD-A and SACD was going on. They couldn't get people to plunck to big money for a new digital player when 2 new formats where on the horizon.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Psiload
I'm not even going to pretend to understand this, but I'd be interested to hear your comments on this:

http://www.pcavtech.com/techtalk/biwire/index.htm

(Conclusion)

We have shown that Biwiring (electrically is the same)

(IOW, Biwiring has no electrical effect if the speaker wire is properly designed for the speaker and the length of the wire, and the wire has lower series impedance than the source impedance of the power amp - both these conditions are commonly satisfied)


Actually, the caveats that I bolded are NOT commonly satisfied on the extremely high end equipment. Which is exactly what I have been pointing out in my posts.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by scotth
Actually, the caveats that I bolded are NOT commonly satisfied on the extremely high end equipment. Which is exactly what I have been pointing out in my posts. Gotcha... that's kinda what I'd figured. Sorry for my cluelessness.

How rare would you say the application is that could appreciably benefit from such a configuration?

Thank you for your patience.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Psiload
Gotcha... that's kinda what I'd figured. Sorry for my cluelessness.

How rare would you say the application is that could appreciably benefit from such a configuration?

Thank you for your patience.

Where it would be typically noticable....

figure a speaker weighing greater than 150lbs a piece and costing $10k a pair or more (even that would not guarantee it, though).

The bare minimum amp that could deliver enough current would probably be a Rotel RB-1090 for $3k. That is an extremely cheap price for the amount of amp. More typically would be McCormack DNA 500, most of the big Krell pieces, the big stuff Mark Levinson, Classe' Omega/Omicron amps and some others. Other than that Rotel amp, they are all over $7k a pop.

There are no tube amps on the planet with the exception of possibly the Manley 500 mono blocks that can really benefit from bi-wiring. Even that would be a huge stretch.

Edited to add:

I guess that would be a pretty rare system.:D

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by trainman
BPSCG: If you, (feeling sure to detect subtleties of a musical performance, your wife and your friends), cannot discern anything, you have the right even to declare that the chip is a fraud. It will be your personal experience. I don't understand this.

If other people in a DBT can hear that it does what it purports to do, it is not a fraud, whether I can detect any effect or not. If some people - even a small minority of those tested - can reliably distinguish the GSIC-treated disc from the untreated one, then it is not a fraud. Period.

If nobody in a large-scale DBT can reliably distinguish the GSIC-treated disc from the untreated one, then it is a fraud. Period.

Testing just myself and Mrs. BPSCG will only prove that neither of us can hear a difference, and it may be because our listening abilities are impaired.

But as I intend to subject large numbers of people, of all ages and both sexes to this test, eventually, I'll have a database of test results. If after testing 25 people, I find even one person who can reliably distinguish the treated disc from the untreated one, then the GSIC actually works (or that person has some heretofore undetected paranormal ability and I will happily help him go through the JREF challenge in exchange for a cut of the million bucks).

However, if after testing 25 people, I find nobody who can reliably make the distinction, I will have to conclude the device does not work.
I could only argue, (as I would write to Gr8wight if he would continue), that for me there is always a possibility some tweaks to act, not on the musical signal but on the human nervous system itself That's not how the manufacturer claims the device works.
My advice: Use an old cd recording – for instance, one of those EMI cd’s that are sold nice price, since they were recorded during the ‘80s or early ‘90s. Why? I have no objection (I have a number of those CDs, and wouldn't mind buying another one if it helps keep my expenses down), but what significance does the date the recording was made have? Didn't you say you've used it successfully on some old Arthur Schnabel recordings (those would be from the 1930's and 1940's, for you non-classically-inclined folks)?
Leave the chip on the player for 4 seconds Why? The manufacturer recommends two seconds.and start the serious listening at least half an hour later, as it seems that the effect progresses with time (it is not totally instant). That is not what the manufacturer claims.
Also, it would be good, if your system was a bit analytical (or “bright� if you wish) in order to help you discern the possible differences in sound. If you have got used with your one though, it would be better to stick with it for the test.I am not going to buy new equipment for this test. AFAIK, the manufacturer does not warn that your audio system has to have certain characteristics for the GSIC to be effective.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Got the GSIC today, in a plain brown envelope (I was hoping it was porn, but...).

Won't be able to test it immediately, as we're going out of town for a week, but it'll be at the top of my list of things to do when we get back. I promise to put up results of my first semi-DBT (thanks, jj, for the protocol suggestion) by August 27 or I'm Madeliene Albright's uglier sister.

Oh, come on. You planned that just so you could say....

This weekend is a no-go.

:D

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Oh, come on. You planned that just so you could say....

This weekend is a no-go.

:D I would, except that either LostAngeles or wellfed said it first. I don't remember which one, and I don't want to accidentally step on someone's copyright/trademark/whatever, because there were those here who suggested that wellfed was the litigious sort, and I'm just a poor government bureaucrat sucking at the teat of the public weal...:D

[Psiload]

Originally posted by scotth
Where it would be typically noticable....

figure a speaker weighing greater than 150lbs a piece and costing $10k a pair or more (even that would not guarantee it, though).

The bare minimum amp that could deliver enough current would probably be a Rotel RB-1090 for $3k. That is an extremely cheap price for the amount of amp. More typically would be McCormack DNA 500, most of the big Krell pieces, the big stuff Mark Levinson, Classe' Omega/Omicron amps and some others. Other than that Rotel amp, they are all over $7k a pop.

There are no tube amps on the planet with the exception of possibly the Manley 500 mono blocks that can really benefit from bi-wiring. Even that would be a huge stretch.

Edited to add:

I guess that would be a pretty rare system.:D So... any speaker weighing less than 150 pounds, costing less than $10K, and configured with biwiring double terminal sets is, for all intents and purposes, a fraud. Correct?

Sorta like the racing stripes on my '85 Renault LeCar. :D

That's probably like 99+ % of all (of the biwiring equipped) speakers sold in the world. Right?

[Terry]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
It is as good as this logic.

1. Witches Burn.
2. Wood Burns.
3. Wood Floats.
4. Ducks Float.
5. Therefore... The logic goes: that if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch and they can burn her. :p

Paul

:) :) :)

Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?

--Terry.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Psiload
So... any speaker weighing less than one hundred pounds, costing less than $10K, and configured with biwiring double terminal sets is, for all intents and purposes, a fraud. Correct?

Sorta like the racing stripes on my '85 Renault LeCar. :D

That's probably like 99+ % of all (of the biwiring equipped) speakers sold in the world. Right?

Probably less the 99%, but yup... a high percentage.

I certainly wouldn't argue 90 or even 95... 99+% seems a bit too high. There are more speakers sold that meet that criteria than you might think.

B&W makes several, Dunlavy, Hales Design Group (when they were still in business), Genesis and there are others.

Hmmmm.... well certainly less than 99% by numbers of models... maybe greater than that by units sold. It would probably be pretty close.

There would be a greater number that would be measurable with instrumentation that most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference by listening.

I have a 5 channel system. All five speakers are bi-wire capable. Only my main stereo pair are bi-wired. Even the single wire I run to the center and rear speakers is overkill. They just will never need the current since they don't have large bass drivers.

[jimlintott]

I agree though, most systems don't have the 'guts' to make an audible difference by bi-wiring alone. Even the majority of the 'audiophile' grade systems don't. But, some of them do.

Thanks for the lucid explanation of a possible scenario for bi-wire to have an advantage.

One of the things that is driving audio sales now days is the home theatre system. People who really didn't care much about better audio equipment are now buying it. Even with large capable mains and centre channels these people always get large powerful subwoofers. Depending on where the amp's crossovers are set the mains would likely never see the frequencies that would result in this phenomena.

[scotth]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Thanks for the lucid explanation of a possible scenario for bi-wire to have an advantage.

One of the things that is driving audio sales now days is the home theatre system. People who really didn't care much about better audio equipment are now buying it. Even with large capable mains and centre channels these people always get large powerful subwoofers. Depending on where the amp's crossovers are set the mains would likely never see the frequencies that would result in this phenomena.

Pretty much true.

I had more to say, but I'll just leave it at that.

ok. ok.. I'll say one more thing... As far as I know, none of the home theatre 'systems' (that is the all in one packages) are even remotely close to this level of performance regardless of the cross over point.

[force_redo]

@scotth
Nope, you didn't understand it correctly. The voltage drop is actually across the speaker wire, not in the finals of the amp.

I did understand that part. What I didn't take into account was that the following might not be the case:

the wire has lower series impedance than the source impedance of the power amp

Sorry for that. Schoolboy mistake.
Unfortunatelty I'm not in the area of Texas, not even close. I'd love to try out whether I can hear the difference...

@Powa to trainman
Do you really think that the pits on metal surface of a CD could MOVE AROUND by themselves? Wow.

Of course! And at the same time - because it's so golden and intelligent - it knows how to rearrange them to make it sound "better". (By whatever standards)


@trainman
For all of your reasonable questions about the chip and its inventors, I don’t have the slightest answer. And I admit that this is the weakest part in my strategy here. If I had though, there would be no point for discussion and Randi would not have denounced the chip as a swindle.

And since you don't and the guys selling it neither, it is quite rightfully called swindle, I think.

There are many products in audio that have received positive reviews and their effect is more easily recognized than the one of GSIC, without giving any information about how they were invented. The same stands also for the great majority of cable constructors.


True. And not only in audio. But this is not my point. My point is: If the Company who is selling something new (as in: unheard of before/revolutionary) don't have a clue how it works, they could have not invented it and subsequently wouldn't be able to produce it and sell it. I'm not interested in how exactly they invented it. (Over a beer, I assume) All I say is: If it works and there's somebody producing it he must know how and why it works. Wouldn't you agree? So much just for the theory that "they might not know themselves". And if they do know how it works, read the Paragraph 2 again in my original post.

To your questions, I would add another one, that I admit I am not able to answer: "Is the effect really permanent?

I think if you would edit your post and change this question to "Does it work at all?" we would get closer to the point. Nobody here cares if it wears off. I care if it "wears on" in the first place.

I think the root to this debate is that you have completely accepted for yourself that this device is working. I can only speak for myself, but I spent a split second on the thought "What if this device works" and then concluded for myself that it can't. It's impossible.

With all due respect, I don't believe that you spent a serious thought on "What if it doesn't work and I am deluding myself".

I know that this discussion won't convice you. I think it's very rare that people give up believes based on reason. I spent half a day trying to explain to the people in my office that on the southern hemisphere the water doesn't spin the other way around in the plughole of your sink, I tried it out. They almost slaughtered me. Luckily there are enough good resouces on the internet to debunk this myth.

And I believe this chip can't work.

So to conclude this and let's try and compare what it takes to convince us:
Me: "If you do a serious DBT that's proof enough for me to believe you"

What would it take to convice you that it doesn't work?

FR

[scotth]

trainman....

Are you aware that it has been shown time and time again that with many people you can do the following....

Tell them you are doing a A to B comparision.

You play A for them and tell them to hear such and such. Then tell them that you are switching to B but really play A again. Then tell them the should hear such and such difference.

Most people will agree they hear the difference even when they listened to exactly the same flippin thing both times. People are suggestable, very.

A large fraction of audiophile products on the market are sold on that principal alone. Your little chips fall into that category. They don't work, they can't work.

I don't know how many people I have had tell me that they can here the difference between a real high dollar power cord on an amp and a regular one. Under ABX testing, they always fail to tell the difference. How could there be a noticable difference? The amplifier gets its power though 40 or 50 miles of completely normal cheap wire and they think they can tell a difference that the last 5 feet is better wire? Bull crap.

Learn a little about yourself/psychology (and how you can be fooled) and know a little engineering/phsyics. It'll save ya tons of money.

[scotth]

Originally posted by force_redo
@scotth


I did understand that part. What I didn't take into account was that the following might not be the case:

"the wire has lower series impedance than the source impedance of the power amp"

Sorry for that. Schoolboy mistake.
Unfortunatelty I'm not in the area of Texas, not even close. I'd love to try out whether I can hear the difference...

Not a big deal, most people aren't familiar with what exists at that end of the market.

The output impedence of that Rotel RB-1090 is less than .008 ohm and that is probably the highest of the bunch listed.

[Moochie]

Sorry -- I must mention that this is in reply to Trainman's story...




Hmmm... Seems to me that you are more evidence of how some people are not easily divorced from their mania/eccentric beliefs/downright ignorance of the scientific method.

I have an acquaintance who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on assembling the "perfect" audio-visual system -- yet I have never seen him actually enjoying a bit of music or a movie.

He simply will not accept that if I like a melody, it doesn't matter to me through which technology I hear it -- the radio in the car, a tiny transistor radio, or a $100,000 system -- I enjoy the melody just as much.

Similarly with films -- if the story is interesting and engaging, I can enjoy it as much on a 34 cm TV as the largest plasma panel.

I'm sorry, but you fail to convince me of anything.

Moochie

[Paulhoff]

Glad to see many of you enjoy Monty Python. All is not lost in this world.

I just wish trainman would, get off the train, man. I think jabbing oneself with a dull needle in the eye would be much easier to take.

�Never in the history of humankind, have so many, known so little, about so much.�

A paraphrase from one James Burke’s TV shows. I think it is very important to understand what it means and how it affects people’s judgements on how things in the world work. Unfortunately too many people will fill in the gapes of their knowledge with BS and make poor decisions that affect all our lives. I would much prefer someone to say to me, I DO NOT KNOW and even say, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, then have them come up with BS to support more BS.

Also I think that there is too much BS on the Internet, that take advantage of people lack of knowledge or at least the ability to ask the right questions. If you don’t look at things with a skeptic eye, look out.

I have always said to my son, there is more than one path to an answer. If you can take three paths to get the same answer, much likely the answer is correct. I have a friend who would not that one solution to an electrical problem; I would have to come up with three are more until he believed me. A good student will make a good teacher a better one.

Paul

:) :) :)

[scotth]

Originally posted by Moochie
He simply will not accept that if I like a melody, it doesn't matter to me through which technology I hear it -- the radio in the car, a tiny transistor radio, or a $100,000 system -- I enjoy the melody just as much.

Similarly with films -- if the story is interesting and engaging, I can enjoy it as much on a 34 cm TV as the largest plasma panel.

Moochie

If you think that there is no difference in the level of involvement and enjoyment of a good action film (lets say, "U-571" for example) when viewed on a dinky TV with its built in speaker or a proper theatre system, I say you are not being honest (with yourself).

I will agree that a good story and well executed production are the most important thing, but completely denying the impact that can be added by a theatre system is rediculous.

[Ossai]

trainman
OSSAI: There has been given no evidence from anyone here. No one has tested the chip or other tweaks himself, except me, and I have reported that I have conducted blind tests in my house with other, even more radical, tweaks, with friends, although the tests were not “scientific�, not prepared from a mathematician. Without going back through the entire thread, no you didn’t. You have stated that you tested and can tell treated CDs from untreated CDs when you knew whether or not they had been treated.

You don’t believe me and you won’t believe me if I tell you that I did a DBT at home. So, if you wish so, it is my nonsense against your nonsense. Are you now saying that you have indeed done at least a blind test? If so please post your protocols and results.

By the way, who made that “scale of credibility� from 1 to 100? Under which scientific rules – and approved by whom? It was an offhand remark, but if you would prefer a more rigorous rating then refer to http://www1.tpgi.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html]Carl ( [url) Sagan ’s Baloney Detection Kit[/url].

Ossai

[Moochie]

Originally posted by scotth
If you think that there is no difference in the level of involvement and enjoyment of a good action film (lets say, "U-571" for example) when viewed on a dinky TV with its built in speaker or a proper theatre system, I say you are not be honest (with yourself).

I will agree that a good story and well executed production are the most important thing, but completely denying the impact that can be added by a theatre system is rediculous.

I didn't say any such thing. For me, the story, and how it is told, is key.

I should mention that my prime source of entertainment growing up was books.

I note there is a difference between the literate generation and the visual generation.

And, please, be assured that a theatre system cannot add anything to the impact of a good book.

Noise and lights never did anything but render me numb.

My two favorite films are To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Yearling. Neither could ever be improved with modern technology.

Regards,

Moochie

[Paulhoff]

trainman
“�BPSCG: If you, (feeling sure to detect subtleties of a musical performance, your wife and your friends), cannot discern anything, you have the right even to declare that the chip is a fraud. It will be your personal experience.
I could only argue, (as I would write to Gr8wight if he would continue), that for me there is always a possibility some tweaks to act, not on the musical signal but on the human nervous system itself – and so, their action to be a priori subjective. There are people for instance that are very sensitive to mobile phones and after two minutes of talking get a headache – and others that can talk for hours. This is another matter though.��

Disclaimer. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. Disclaimer. Always finding some BS Disclaimer.

““Not on the musical signal but on the human nervous system itself��
Give me a break! What a load of BS.

I and a few others are so tied of all the BS. I also love hearing this from the so-called audiophiles, when they make changes to their system and say it is so obvious to them. The change is so big. You have heard it all. But go thru a good DBT and, nothing, nothing, it must be the test, and it can’t in any way be them. They are so blind to how they can trick themselves into hearing what they want to be true.

We need a new term to audiophile (I have said this before), Sciaudiophine, One who does not buy into BS. One who knows that he can trick himself, and will do the DBT and not bring BS into it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[scotth]

Hey Paulhoff, I like it.

[jj]

Originally posted by trainman
It seems plain ridiculus for Andycal, when I say that the exception of Axiom reaffirms the rule, and he comments that "this is exactly why people are getting annoyed with me". But hey, JJ "breaks his silence" again to declare that "the audibility of such issues is not in question".

Now - should I ask from JJ to explain to Axiom Audio why they are wrong (and should I say "deaf" also?), should I ask him to tell the former editor of Hi-Fi Choice that he is “nonsensical and uninformed� or should I point to Andycal the answer of JJ?


Next time try quoting me correctly and in context, and don't you ever again dare to put words in my mouth like you did above. Your putting of words in my mouth is an egregious ethical violation that reflects on your entire enterprise.

[jimlintott]

ok. ok.. I'll say one more thing... As far as I know, none of the home theatre 'systems' (that is the all in one packages) are even remotely close to this level of performance regardless of the cross over point.

HTIB, 'home theater in a box', is light years away from that level of performance. They'll claim a 100 watts per channel and yet have a transformer the size of a hamster. I guess if your point of reference is the litlle speakers in your TV then it might sound OK.:(

[Paulhoff]

If you need a 100 watts from all 5 channels at once, time for that hearing aid.

Seen a thing on TV last night or so, about thousands of watts system for the car. Too many eagle-trips going on here. They’ll need that hearing aid soon too.

Reminds me of CB’rs doing the same thing, seeing how fast they can cook a hotdog when they key down the radio with their big radio amplifier

Paul


:) :) :)

[Aerich]

Originally posted by scotth
All it takes for a CD to be 'perfect' is that its data be able to be read accurately AND that the data rate be 'constant' when it is read.

Most CD players (I'll give exceptions in a minute) clock the DACs with the data.

I'm sorry, but this is a very wrong idea.

Data has no 'clock'. It's just data. A clock signal is a regular timing pulse. The data on a CD is just data, not timing pulses. Nothing more than a pattern of pits (or simulated pits in the case of CD-R) whose shapes encode a sequence of numbers.


CD-Rs generally do a better job at recording 'evenly' when their record speed is set to lower settings. In fact, some CR-Rs making better discs at low record speeds than store bought discs.... but not by much, I've never been able to hear the difference.


It's unlikely for a CD-R to be better (in terms of how easy it is to read by a player) than a pressed disc. The CD-R technique used to simulate the physical pits of a pressed disc is to burn an organic dye layer in the CD-R with a laser. While this produces a nonreflective area similar to a physical pit, the optical contrast ratio between burned and clear is not as high as that between pit and land ('land' being the terminology used for the absence of a pit in the jargon of CD technology).

This caused problems with players made prior to the introduction of CD-R. The original CD specification did not anticipate anything other than prepressed discs, and thus required contrast ratios typical of prepressed discs. When CD-R first came about, only players capable of reading out-of-spec discs could read them. These days, of course, engineers design players with CD-R read capability as a feature, not an accident, but it's still harder to read CD-R than CD-ROM. (The most common manifestation of this difficulty is that a high speed computer CD drive will usually read pressed discs at a higher data rate than it can CD-Rs.)

Two other important facets of CD-R recording quality are how close to ideal the pit and land lengths are, and how sharp the transition between pit and land is. These can both be affected by recording speed. However, you should not assume that slower is always better: I have seen many recording quality tests demonstrating that many recorder/media combinations work BETTER at high speed than at low speed. Much of this is probably due to the fact that modern media and recorders are specifically optimized for high speed recording, and little attention is paid to slower write speeds since nobody uses them. (Before you object to 'nobody', remember that the population of users who think that writing slower is better for audio quality is a very close approximation to zero from the perspective of the companies designing the media and recorders.)

In any case, you will not hear any difference between a prepressed disc and a bit-for-bit CD-R copy of that disc so long as both play back without uncorrectable bit errors.


The exceptions... Any portable cd player that has an anti-skip buffer will play any CD or CD-R perfectly as long as the data can be read. Since the data is read into a buffer and clocked the DAC with secondary crystal based oscillator, it doesn't matter of the disc has any data jitter or not.


You have just described how all CD players work.

As it turns out, there is no way to construct a CD player without some form of buffering. This is due to how the error correction works. Some parts of the multilayered error correction scheme used in CDs work over relatively large blocks of data (the equivalent of 1/75th of a second of audio) and cannot take place until the whole block has been read into a buffer. The other thing is that the physical layout of these blocks on the disc uses interleaving to improve data integrity. Interleaving makes it likely that a single scratch will not cause any uncorrectable errors within any given block since the block's data is spread out over a wide area on the disc, but it also means that during playback the system must deinterleave blocks, which requires buffering.

So, the only difference between a portable player with anti-skip and a regular player is that the portable just makes the buffer really large. The regular player only has as much as it needs for the deinterleaving, error correction, and disc speed control to work. The last refers to the fact that disc speed is regulated by how full the buffer is -- too full and the player slows the disc down to let the buffer empty a bit, too empty and it speeds up.

(In fact, that's how CD avoids one of the problems of LP: that LP's frequency accuracy is determined by how accurately the turntable controls its own rotational velocity. In CD, it's OK for the disc to spin a little fast or slow; in fact it sawtooths around the ideal rate, using the buffer to soak up the too-fast and too-slow periods. This also let the designers of CD use constant linear velocity recording to improve data density, as opposed to the constant angular velocity of LP.)

[scotth]

Aerich.... most CD players generate the clock for the DACs from the data stream being read from the disc. There is a clock signal in the S/PDIF data stream that is locked onto. This is called a "recovered" clock.

A poorly made CD can and does cause clock jitter of the DACs.

[Paulhoff]

No...

Most use a crystal.

Only separate DAC's use the AES/EBU or SPDIF stream to clock.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Aerich]

Originally posted by scotth
Aerich.... most CD players generate the clock for the DACs from the data stream being read from the disc. There is a clock signal in the S/PDIF data stream that is locked onto. This is called a "recovered" clock.

S/PDIF is a specification for encoding both digital audio data and a clock signal into a 1-bit serial digital signal on a wire or as light pulses in an optical fiber. What's on the disc is not S/PDIF. It is data which may or may not be transformed into a S/PDIF signal by a player.

All CD players generate the playback clock (whether that clock drives a DAC or a S/PDIF transmitter) using a reference oscillator. There simply isn't any way to do it from the disc itself.

The recovered clock you speak of is not quite what you think it is. Since a S/PDIF transmitter encodes both clock and data into a single signal, S/PDIF receivers must do some decoding in order to separate the two. This process is referred to as clock recovery.

It is very possible for the process of S/PDIF encoding and decoding to introduce jitter at the receiver which wasn't present at the transmitter. In fact, many cheap S/PDIF optical transceivers have terrible jitter performance. If you're using S/PDIF and are concerned about jitter, the coaxial form is often a safer bet than optical. (It's not that the engineering problem of transmitting a clock or clock-modulated signal over optical fiber without introducing substantial jitter hasn't been solved, it's that it's not completely easy to do so, and there are many cheap optical transceiver components which do a bad job.)

A poorly made CD can and does cause clock jitter of the DACs.

This is, I am afraid, just audiophle mythology. Since the clock does not in any way, shape, or form come from the disc, a poorly made CD has no influence on clock jitter.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by BPSCG
If nobody in a large-scale DBT can reliably distinguish the GSIC-treated disc from the untreated one, then it is a fraud. Period.

Testing just myself and Mrs. BPSCG will only prove that neither of us can hear a difference, and it may be because our listening abilities are impaired.

But as I intend to subject large numbers of people, of all ages and both sexes to this test, eventually, I'll have a database of test results. If after testing 25 people, I find even one person who can reliably distinguish the treated disc from the untreated one, then the GSIC actually works (or that person has some heretofore undetected paranormal ability and I will happily help him go through the JREF challenge in exchange for a cut of the million bucks).

However, if after testing 25 people, I find nobody who can reliably make the distinction, I will have to conclude the device does not work.


I think I have to disagree with you there. Audiophiles are a rare breed that train themselves to hear differences in recordings that most people would miss. Although I firmly believe that the GSIC, and many other audio tweaks are nothing but money making malarkey, there are some audio tweaks that do make differences in the sound quality that would be detectable by a careful listener in a DBT, but not by the average person.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, and I mean no disrespect to you, BPSCG, or to Lost Angeles, but unless the claimant believes he or she can hear a difference up front, any failed DBT of the GSIC is completely meaningless.

[Paulhoff]

I have been playing the audiophile game for over 35 years, and most of the audiophiles that I have run into believe in some very unfounded things. That is what this thread is all about. Most do not do a DBT and believe that their ears are all that they need, and that the ears don’t lie. But they forget or don’t know, or will not believe, that the mind will and can be trained to fool itself.

Also about common sense, has my father has said so many times, and he has said it is not his saying, “The problem with common sense is that it is not COMMON enough�. :(

Paul

:) :) :)

[jj]

Originally posted by scotth
Aerich.... most CD players generate the clock for the DACs from the data stream being read from the disc. There is a clock signal in the S/PDIF data stream that is locked onto. This is called a "recovered" clock.

A poorly made CD can and does cause clock jitter of the DACs.

All 1-box CD players I've looked at (and that would be quite a few) have a clock that drives the DAC pretty much directly. The CD reading hardware is driven by a buffer-fullness control that fills a buffer that the DAC empties out regularly.

There are at least 3, usually 4, major stages of processing between the data read off the CD and the data provided to the DAC. The data rate changes each time, some are block processes rather than samplewise processes, and the data is stored on the CD by using both EFM (eight to fourteen modulation) and also substantial time diversity. The clocks coming off the CD could never under any circumstances be suitable for driving the DAC in any fashion whatsoever.

In 2-part (separate DAC) player setups, the DAC must indeed derive the clock from the SPDIF or AES/EBU data sent from the transport. This data is generated by a stable clock. There are, however, due to the design of AES/EBU, some difficulties in recovering clock data unless techniques well known in the 1950's and 1960's in telecom are used to dejitter the clock.

These are the facts. Enjoy them.

[jj]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I think I have to disagree with you there. Audiophiles are a rare breed that train themselves to hear differences in recordings that most people would miss.

Unfortunately your claim runs counter to the few times audiophiles have actually participated in a meaningfully designed test, in which professional listeners (tonnmeisters, mix engineers, codec engineers, and other experts, some of whom are also audiophiles) have egregiously outscored the audiophiles in falsifiable critical listening tests.

You have made a claim, now please provide some data contrary to that collected by CCIR, CRC, BBC, Deutsche Telecom, and the like, along with the test descriptions. If you can not, you will have to accept that I must reject your claim outright as unsupported and contrary to known test results.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I think I have to disagree with you there. Audiophiles are a rare breed that train themselves to hear differences in recordings that most people would miss. Although I firmly believe that the GSIC, and many other audio tweaks are nothing but money making malarkey, there are some audio tweaks that do make differences in the sound quality that would be detectable by a careful listener in a DBT, but not by the average person.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, and I mean no disrespect to you, BPSCG, or to Lost Angeles, but unless the claimant believes he or she can hear a difference up front, any failed DBT of the GSIC is completely meaningless.

Perhaps you need someone like myself to test this kind of thing. I suffer from CAD (Central auditory disorder). If I am in a quiet room, having a conversation with someone, and there is a slight hiss from, say, a plugged in pc in the corner, my brain does not know which sound it is supposed to prioritise - the person's voice, or the background hiss. So often I find myself staring at someone's mouth while they speak to me, but I can't quite 'hear' what they are saying because the background noise seems louder to me. :(

It's a very frustrating condition that took years to be properly diagnosed while I thought I was losing my mind. As a teenager I would get upset about the poor quality from my tape deck on several occassions when no one else could hear a problem - it often turned out to be the batteries running done, and I heard that the music was playing a little slower leading up to this. I'm not an expert in music, nor am I particularly musically talented.

So, I was glad to switch from vinyl to cds, because I didn't hear the static noises and so on over the music. Even tapes used to annoy me because the machinery makes a little noise as the tapes move. Yes, cd players and speakers make a little noise too, but this is often quiet enough to be drowned out more effectively by the music itself. If there was anything altered in the sounds of a cd by these chip things, then a person with my condition would be likely to notice it.

[trainman]

Dear friends

The discussion about bi-wiring and the cd-r’s seems to advance. From one point of view it pleases me, since it proves (up to a point at least) that physics and Maxwell’s equations (that Scotth sends me to learn) have been proved inadequate to give a definitive answer to the question. On the other hand though, I will have to rush to the next atrium, since I feel the danger to spend precious time in another “cd-r-like� discussion.

I will just stop short to remind you that, as Psiload informed us, the - credible indeed -Axiom Audio, proposes through her page, an article about bi-wiring, by the equally credible journalist Alan Lofft who claims: “I never heard any differences, nor have any of our laboratory measurements or scientifically controlled double blind listening tests ever demonstrated there are audible differences�. Now, I don’t know who conducted the DBT (Lofft or the engineers of Axiom Audio) but, since the article is included and proposed at the page of the company, I guess that the latter agree with the former.

So, as our thread is about the “Audio Tweaks and the DBT�, it would be very nice, if people like JJ that insist that “the audibility of such issues is not in question�, could explain why Axiom Audio’s engineers or the most credible journalist that is hosted to her page, could not, either through laboratory measurements or DBT, detect any difference. If they have not any hearing problems, and their equipment is up to date, there must be some other reason. I am sure mr. JJ will break his precious silence to give some advice – not to me this time, but to Axiom Audio.

I was planning for the second exposition of official tweaks to write about the mains cables, and use exactly the same arguments that Scotth appeals to in his last message to me. He caught me up. Some food for thought: Most “credible companies� at their more expensive stuff, have a detachable mains cable, proposing indirectly to their customers to buy a special one. Which are the arguments? Mains cables can work as filters to the noise of the preceding electrical network and to radio-frequency interference. That could be true in many special designs, but we have also cheap plain solid core designs without any kind of filter, like the ones that are made by the Swizz Company DNM – highly esteemed in the audiophile circles – that should not benefit at all, since the mains cable do not carry any musical signal.

How then come, and people swear that can hear a difference? And – I repeat the same question – would the JREF rank the effect of the detachable mains wire among the pseudo-scientific and paranormal? Thousands audiophiles and aspiring manufactures all over the world would like to know, whether they can earn 1 million dollars just hearing the “bull crap� difference between an ordinary mains cable and a labeled one, under a DBT.

Trainman

[trainman]

SCOTTH: The most interesting of all you have written, is your claim that you “can carry on about theory (…) but the test is in sound. Are ya in North Texas, I can make a believer out of you in just a few minutes�.
You claim for yourself the right to “make a believer in just a few minutes� since “the test is in sound�, but for me – well, I have to revisit Maxwell’s equations and learn psychology! Very fair indeed!
It would be interesting for me if any of you would claim to possess the knowledge of the mechanism of self-delusion. As it stands, telling me that I am (self) deceived is just a transfer – what you cannot describe, you just classify under the label “illusion-delusion� and you are finished with it.
If you had read my posts till now (which you haven’t) you would see that I have NEVER told anyone here what to expect from the chip, with the SOLE exception in my very first post that describes the effect with very, very old gramophone recordings that few people would be interested in. Even with these, I stated that the effect was not of “improving� the sound as the company declares, but of “altering� it, to the point that someone would think that the sound is actually “worse�. I suppose though, that all that is totally irrelevant to you, since you have already made the conclusion that I am a naïve person that believes whatever he is told, without minding my own pocket.

POWA: Nice to read something from a country nearby. Well, there are people who swear that static charges at the label side of the cd interfere with the reading process and worsen the sound - hence the use of special platters (like Statmat), or even a simple antistatic varnishing liquid for furniture (like Pronto) for the label side. Would you try the latter? You won’t have to pay to a swindler and, in the case you see that there is no difference, you will still be able to use the stuff for your tables. In case it works, would that mean that the pits move around by themselves?

BPSCG: I hope that you test this stuff, in the way you think better. I was just giving you some suggestions from my own experience. You may follow them, or not. As for your system, it was you that minded to tell us which kind of loudspeakers you use, and I thought proper to make a comment about the rest of the system -nothing more.
I suggested you use recordings from the ‘80’s or early ’90’s, since their sound quality is lower. People tend to tell easier when a bad sound improves or stands even worse, than when they are already pleased with the sound they have and thereby, concentrate to the music satisfaction, which is already even more subjective. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t discern differences in more modern recordings, or that you can’t test both. Actually, the company suggests using the chip with modern ones. It is all up to you, and your conclusions shall be respected.
The only thing I would “demand� of anyone testing the stuff is to have his listening room cleaned up, since dust works as a sound attenuator, especially at the high frequencies, making the listening experience dull and uninteresting. And I suppose that makes sense to everyone, even if the company that makes the chip does not mention it.

FORCE_REDO: You have asked for answers, not for suggestions and, certainly not for “readings�. Since I don’t know the people that make the chip, how could I give you answers? The next thing to happen, it would be you, or someone else to say: “Well – you seem to know pretty much about the stuff, now tell us how it works!�
I don’t agree that someone must now how and why a product works since he sells it. Experience has many things to teach. I have already written many times about the cable controversy, the tests that have been done till now and the foul explanations of almost all manufacturers. Though, it needs only to visit an experienced dealer to tell him which way you want to adjust the sound of your system, in order to propose to you 2-3 products accordingly.
Ah! – I almost forgot: Your friends at the office, believed the rumor about the spin of the water. Why didn’t you believe it? Have you been watching, had you experimented with the water yourself, during the countless times you have been bathed, or you have just read the debunking in the Internet? What about them? Why have they nearly slaughtered you, and what’s the difference between them and almost all of you in our discussion?

MOOCHIE: My greetings to Australia. If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I agree with your spirit about musical enjoyment. The only thing I would like to convince you for, though, is to try yourself - and the sole arguments I would accept for not doing so, is that you are not interested or you are not willing to pay. I was offered to propose alternatives for the latter, but no one was interested – and so, we are again at the beginning.
(The world changed totally after the invention of the TV. That was the day that the battle for the book was lost for ever…)

OSSAI: You insist that I haven’t reported to have conducted DBT at home with other more radical tweaks. I won’t point you the page nor refer you to any post of mine. I will only underline, that you claim as such “without going back through the entire thread�: This is a first class exposition of paranormal ability from a skeptic that should be rewarded from JREF with 1 million dollars.

JJ: Save your hatred for the future. I just quoted a British journalist and you commented that “my summaries of the issues, as usual, remain nonsensical and uninformed, as well as insulting to the real expert and denigrating of the real science of audio�. You may correct Axiom Audio or write your complaints about the article of Paul Messenger to the magazine itself: Send your words to dan.george@futurenet.co.uk and, should they be considered “letter of the month�, you will be very happy to win a Kimber Timbre interconnects.

Trainman

[Paulhoff]

Now I know why there is a Grand Canyon, it makes it easy to push people off.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ashles]

I forget - if any of these devices work, why are audiophiles not applying for the million dollar challenge in their droves?

I'm sure inbetween all the irrelevencies trainman explained this clearly and concisely.

I juat can't quite find where.

Can anyone help?

[Paulhoff]

Yea it all clears up at the bottom of the Canyon.

But the subject goes all to pieces.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Psiload]

Originally posted by trainman
***snip***

That could be true in many special designs, but we have also cheap plain solid core designs without any kind of filter, like the ones that are made by the Swizz Company DNM – highly esteemed in the audiophile circles – that should not benefit at all, since the mains cable do not carry any musical signal.

How then come, and people swear that can hear a difference? And – I repeat the same question – would the JREF rank the effect of the detachable mains wire among the pseudo-scientific and paranormal? Thousands audiophiles and aspiring manufactures all over the world would like to know, whether they can earn 1 million dollars just hearing the “bull crap� difference between an ordinary mains cable and a labeled one, under a DBT.

Trainman Mains cables? As in the power cable? As in the cord that brings power to your audio system?

Is this for real?

Companies are actually selling "high end" power cables as if they make a difference?

This can't be real. Please tell me this is a goof.

This 'audiophile' community sounds like a massive flock of sheep begging to be sheared. I need to get in on this.

If this nonsense doesn't qualify for The JREF prize, then nothing does. This is nonsense on a bun with a side of slaw.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Psiload
This 'audiophile' community sounds like a massive flock of sheep begging to be sheared.
I think you're onto something there.

This audiophile comminity sound like they are all playing elitist one-upmanship on each other.

"Can you hear the very subtle improvement when I put this device here"
"Um... no"
"Oh dear" [shakes head sadly] "I thought you had a good ear, but I guess you can't detect the expert subtleties. Never mind."
"Oh uh yeah, I can hear it now. Oh yeah it's brilliant."


Do you think I could get away with selling the Emperor's New Speakers?
They are invisible and have no actual mass, but the moment you open the (seemingly) empty carboard box they come in, you will notice a distinct improvement in the quality of your system.

[Hellbound]

Ashles,

Try this:

New Nanotech Universal Damping and Inonation Equalizer Spray (NUDIE Spray) (TM):

This revolutionary technology stands to redefine high-end audio in both the home and commercial markets. Specially designed and engineered "Nanodampeners"(TM) are released from a simple aerosol spray. These Nanodampeners attach to various surfaces around the room, and immediately begin working to improve your auditory experience. How do they work?

Our engineers and scientific researchers have harnessed quantum effects to bring this product to you. The Nanodampeners contained in NUDIE Spray make use of entanglement, the principle of quantum mechanics that states that everything maintains a connection to anything it's been in contact with. The Nanodampeners basically act as one huge speaker, converting walls and even furniture into a vibratory platform by communicating instantanouesly with each other. While large effects are possible, such vibration could be dangerous. So, the Nanodampeners are desinged to recieve the incoming audio signal, and vibrate at specific, subtle frequencies in order to dampen out static, hiss, noise, and other unwanted effects, as well as bringing out the subtle tones often lost in traditional audio configurations.

Simply apply NUDIE SPray in your listening room before playing, and once for every 6 hours of music. In addition to hearing a better sound, NUDIE Spray uses a propellant in the dispenser that can offer a pleasing smell and freshen the air!

You'll hear the difference in increased air spcae and lower percieved interference. When you know you have NUDIE Spray working for you, there's no mistaking the difference!

Warning: Do not peel the label off the NUDIE Spray dispenser. Any writing underneath the label (such as "Pledge", Lysol", or "Glade") should not be taken as a result of fraud, but simply because the environmentally conscious Viscous Viper Corporation uses recycled containers.

:D

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Ashles
I think you're onto something there.

This audiophile comminity sound like they are all playing elitist one-upmanship on each other.

"Can you hear the very subtle improvement when I put this device here"
"Um... no"
"Oh dear" [shakes head sadly] "I thought you had a good ear, but I guess you can't detect the expert subtleties. Never mind."
"Oh uh yeah, I can hear it now. Oh yeah it's brilliant."


Do you think I could get away with selling the Emperor's New Speakers?
They are invisible and have no actual mass, but the moment you open the (seemingly) empty carboard box they come in, you will notice a distinct improvement in the quality of your system. I'm starting to see some interesting parallels between the homeopathic and audiophile communities.

I found a DBT of mains cords:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Here are the results:

The total number of correct answers was 73 out of 149, which amounts to 49% accuracy. That is no more accurate than flipping a coin, and therefore, no statistically significant detection of power cable differences.

Wow. What a shocker.

This is interesting:


The self-proclaimed hardcore audiophiles got 48% correct; the rest got 50% correct. Again, no significant differences based on whether or not a listener felt he was an audiophile or not.

and

The 9 out of 15 participants who have invested in after-market power cords scored 48%.

and

Those who on the post-test survey felt most strongly that they had heard differences between cords during the test did not perform better than those who rated their abilities at or below the median.

[Powa]

Originally posted by trainman
POWA: Nice to read something from a country nearby. Well, there are people who swear that static charges at the label side of the cd interfere with the reading process and worsen the sound - hence the use of special platters (like Statmat), or even a simple antistatic varnishing liquid for furniture (like Pronto) for the label side.
Um... If a CD was very dirty, the sound wouldn't get worse. Instead you would hear clicks, pops, and screeches where error correction couldn't correct the errors. The sound wouldn't get muffled or anything.

Anyway, are you saying that GSIC cleans the disc? Because that would be the only explanation for any improvement in sound (no clicks etc.).

Would you try the latter? You won’t have to pay to a swindler and, in the case you see that there is no difference, you will still be able to use the stuff for your tables.
No need to smear anything on a disc. If it's dusty just wipe it gently with a cloth. The error correction is pretty forgiving, anyway. I've seen discs unbelievably scratched and they still played fine.

In case it works, would that mean that the pits move around by themselves?
No. Why? It would just mean that I cleaned the disk.

I still don't know what GSIC is supposed to do to a disc. Do you have any theories?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Ashles,

Try this:

...Edited - Huntman's NUDIE brilliance...
:clap:

The really scary thing is that I really genuinely bet that would make a small fortune. For someone without ethics or anything.

Anyway that's a language nom for sure. :)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Powa
No need to smear anything on a disc. If it's dusty just wipe it gently with a cloth. The error correction is pretty forgiving, anyway. I've seen discs unbelievably scratched and they still played fine.
I know that from Playstation: Way back, I rented a copy of Final Fantasy 7 that just looked hideous, especially since the data side of PS1 CDs is black, revealing every perturbation. Aside from an occasional lock-up that'd occur when summoning Choco/Mog, it worked just fine.

[jj]

Originally posted by trainman
JJ: Save your hatred for the future. I just quoted a British journalist and you commented that “my summaries of the issues, as usual, remain nonsensical and uninformed, as well as insulting to the real expert and denigrating of the real science of audio�. You may correct Axiom Audio or write your complaints about the article of Paul Messenger to the magazine itself: Send your words to dan.george@futurenet.co.uk and, should they be considered “letter of the month�, you will be very happy to win a Kimber Timbre interconnects.

Trainman

How is stating the evidence, namely that your summaries, especially regarding testing methodologies, are nonsensical, uninformed, insulting to real experts, and denigrating of the real science of audio, showing hatred? I am simply stating how your summaries and presentations compare to the actual state of scientific knowledge (which is always provisional, bear in mind).

It is not hate to explain a situation. It would be good if you were to actually answer some criticisms rather than pass out insults like "hatred".

Why you think that Axiom Audio, Mr. Messenger, or whomever are at all germane is beyond me, unless you are arguing that Mr. Messenger , Axiom Audio, or whomever has evidence to show that the actual understanding of how human perception operates with auditory stimulii must be changed. If this is the case, please submit a paper to a relevant refereed journal, if it comes my way in the process of review, I will be glad to review it carefully, and if appropriate, offer suggestions for improvement or modification that would make such evidence more convincing. Certainly new knowledge is always welcome in the scientific community, but knowledge requires evidence in support, not mere hypotheses and allegations.

If you do in fact have such information in hand, please tell the world. If all you have in hand is the desire to accuse research scientists of "hatred", then not only will you be unconvincing, you will be doing your own "movement" harm.

[Darat]

trainman, as a slight aside jj is really an expert in these matters and in the past he has been very helpful in explaining some of the issues regarding how human perception operates with auditory stimuli. If you have a desire to expand your knowledge of the matter I am sure that if you ask politely jj will answer relevant questions. (And provide the references to support what he explains.)

[trainman]

Dear friends

This is the last atrium of arguments to use, and one of the very last posts I have planned to write. I wouldn’t deny to continue should I was asked for, but I believe that for the most of you, the day of the closing of this thread will be joyous.

However; I am very pleased with the appearance of the administrator and his noble way of contact, (although he hasn’t answered yet, my question about the DBT for power cables!) as well as with the last post of JJ. Whether he has shown hatred or not from his very first post on page No.1 till now, is up to every reader to judge – as well as if the problem he sees consists in my summaries or at the quotes I appeal to.

I will only note, that my concern couldn’t be to insist that Axiom Audio or Mr. Messenger are beyond his knowledge, (or, even more, that I know better…), nor could be to study the personality of everyone of my opponents here. My aim was to defend my points of view, to expose contradictions at the posts of my opponents at this thread and thus, to open some kind of a window, that would allow, even to the most hard-line objectivist to accept that something may still escape his knowledge.

Today, I will advance my methods, and I will ask politely for mr. JJ’s comments, as well as demand the ones of the other experts and “experts� of this thread. For today, I am going to present some more of official tweaks, used by the leading designer of one of the most famous and “credible� multinational companies in audio…

Trainman

P.S. for POWA: You misread my answer. I urged you to try “a simple antistatic varnishing liquid for furniture (like Pronto) for the label side�, not the side of the cd that is read by the laser. And my answer was just one, sole, lousy paragraph…

P.S. for PSILOAD: I am finished with the cable controversy, but for you I will make a Postscript: From the interview of ONKYO’s chief designer Sekiya San in the last issue of the British magazine “Hi-Fi World�: Question: “Do you like special wiring?� SS’s answer: “Wiring can affect the sound tremendously, especially where used in the power supply line, at the speaker outputs and in the earth circuit. Our approach is to avoid wiring itself wherever possible, rather having to get into the need to select special types – we always design an amp’s layout for the shortest current signal transmission paths. We also use solid copper plate at critical points on the PCB, such as the earthing circuit and power supply to the power CMOS�. Now, PSILOAD, will you ask mr. Randi to call ONKYO’s chief designer for a Double Blind Test?

[trainman]

Ken Ishiwata is not only one of the leading designers of Marantz, but the inspirer of the Special Editions of her models, as well as the creator of the “Ken Ishiwata Signature� series of cd players and amplifiers that have taken the awards of the hi-fi press as well as the market, by the storm. I suppose, our audio dealer mr.JIMLINTOTT, can inform you accordingly.


The KIS series of Marantz (of whom, the last can be found in every respectable hi-fi market) use the same design of the basic models, “tweaked� by mr. Ishiwata according to his taste. Let us hear him, explaining his methods of tweaking:

At first, I will use as a source, his interview to the British Audio Journal and the journalist Malcolm Steward which can be found in the Internet (http://www.britishaudiojournal.com/features/ken_ishiwata.html). There, the famous audio engineer claims that…

“…every component, including the chassis, influences the sound and imposes its distinct character on the player. If you simply use the same component throughout a range, you don't necessarily achieve the proper musical balance in each model or a coherent graduation in performance as you move through the range. When I started this tweaking thing, many people copied what they thought I was doing: they would say, "Ken Ishiwata used this particular capacitor so it must be good." They would stick it in all their models and come up with a range that had an awful balance�.

Even more characteristic though, is Ken Ishiwata’s interview to the British “Hi-Fi World� magazine and his editor David Price, at the “valve issue� of the latter, two years ago. Describing, how he has tweaked to the end the latter’s “Marantz cd-63 mk-II KI Signature� player, mr. Ishiwata details among others:

“…copper plate the complete bonnet and front panel to reduce the
ground impedance, and at same time reducing eddy currents (of course, the original 63 KI already had a copper plated chassis and rear panel). This means all the metalwork surrounding the mechanism and electronics was now copper plated! This resulted in smoothed out mid-to-mid high frequencies, to give a silky tonal balance�.

�…due to the aforementioned change, the total sound balance was
changed, so to compliment the above, I had to rebalance the bottom end and high frequency, but here I had to take consideration of DP’s tube amplification and NS1000M speakers. The first thing was to get bottom end matching, done by different wiring and a change in power supply components (replacing the electrolytic capacitors and changing the value of fuse resistors). This was quite tricky - I had to try a few things to get the results I wanted. I used copper wire for the power supply, to get the balance in speed, along with tweaking the fuse resistor value. Then the final tonal balance adjustments were done by electrolytic capacitor changes�.

“…next was the high frequency balance. Again, due to the change made by copper plating, and DP’s use of tube amps, I had to compensate for the treble tonality, and give the player a tube-like texture. The first thing I tried was changing the phase compensation in the analogue output amplifier section. The type of capacitors used here can create big differences in the tonal balance, even if they’re the same value! On top of it, the speed of sound changes with these phase compensations! I once again tried a few different types of the same value, and finally got a matched balance but with high speed - very rare in the high frequency domain…�

“…of course, passive components are an important area. For example, in certain places in a circuit, I use Elna Cerafine capacitors and in others Silmics. But you can’t just use one type of audiophile component to guarantee perfect results. You need the counterbalancing – both Elnas and Silmics have very good characters, but you have to balance them in the right measure. You have to learn which components have which characteristics, and when you know you can combine them. Capacitors are the most difficult - basically it’s a non-linear function you’re fighting with. One thing I know is that many people use the same kind of capacitor everywhere – because it’s very good - but it actually sounds awful, because balancing is crucial. You have to know
the characteristics of those components personally. It has taken years of experience, and I had to create a database on my computer! I’m not especially pro-Japanese, it’s just that foreign [that’s as in non-Japanese – Ed.] brands aren’t predictable. I also tried them and they were very good, and then you expect the next shipment to sound the same and they’re completely different! There’s a very nice American manufacturer, and they make very good components, but one day they sound one way and the next day they’re different. If we don’t have consistency then we can’t guarantee the performance!�

Last, the designer informs the readers, that they can send their KIS players to Marantz UK for the ultimate, above described, tweaking.


WONDERING and ASKING…


Everyone interested in the whole interview, may request to post it. For the rest, please accept my apologies for the long and tiresome quoting. I had to do it though, in order to ask our experts here:

1) By which scientific law (Maxwell’s equations, so keen to SCOTTH, etc.) “every component, including the chassis, influences the sound and imposes its distinct character on the player�. How can a copper chassis give a different sound to a chassis made of lead, zing, aluminium, gold, silver – with the exception of vibration behaviour of course, which is NOT mentioned by the designer.

2) By which scientific law, the copper plated surroundings of a mechanism can give a “silky tonal balance� to the sound.

3) By which scientific law, the use of copper wire to the power supply can give more speed to the sound than the use of silver wire or golden wire.

4) By which scientific law, the type of capacitors can create big differences in the tonal balance, even if they’re the same value.

5) By which scientific law, the sound that a capacitor gives (which sound?) may be inconsistent and “one day they sound one way and the next day they’re different� – while another capacitor may be “consistent� and “predictable�.

I would appreciate the same straight answers you demanded so eagerly from me and, paraphrasing Big Randi, I declare that “I have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed tweaks might work�.

I want your straight, documented and “scientifically indisputably evident answer� on my questions. You may guess why…

I am waiting dear skeptics…

Trainman

[andycal]

Hang on, I'm confused. Not as confused as you it seems, but let me just try to clear something up here.

I have to admit, it may have already been alluded to, but some of the postings are to technical/boring for me to take time out to read, so humour me.

There appear to be two arguments being put forward:

"Audio tweaks make a difference to the sound"

and

"The audio tweaks make a humanly perceptible difference to the sound "

As far as I know, the challenge applies to the second as this is how the products are sold.

Now, assuming this is how you intend the argument to go (i.e. the human bit), it seems that your argument is a bit flawed. You see, it has already been stated that a lot of audio companies tout these tweaks in order to sell kit. Sure, they can give statistics and number etc, but as the figures were meaningless to mere human ears, it was all hyperbole.

So, a skeptic would say: "Your sources are poor, because they want to shift kit and so their testimonials cannot be given as evidence".

But you just keep regurgitating them as if we give a damn.

Why should we care what they say?

And then you turn the tables by asking 'scientific' questions:

3) By which scientific law, the use of copper wire to the power supply can give more speed to the sound than the use of silver wire or golden wire.

Actually, I don't think anyone here said it did. The audiophiles said it did and the onus is on them to prove it.

Which brings me to believe that ye may be a troll and you're just doing this so you can have a laugh with your mates down the pub.

Dang. I've fallen right into the trap 'aint I.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by andycal
Hang on, I'm confused. Not as confused as you it seems, but let me just try to clear something up here.

I have to admit, it may have already been alluded to, but some of the postings are to technical/boring for me to take time out to read, so humour me.

There appear to be two arguments being put forward:

"Audio tweaks make a difference to the sound"

and

"The audio tweaks make a humanly perceptible difference to the sound "

As far as I know, the challenge applies to the second as this is how the products are sold.

I don't believe audio tweaks in general are eligible for the challenge. A couple have been specifically singled out as challenge worthy. The GSIC, which is supposed to somehow alter a disc by being placed on top of the player, with no power or any other means of actually affecting the this disc through any known scientific principle and the Ultra-tweeter which is supposed to produce an audio signal in the 1Ghz range, which makes no sense at all.

Other tweaks, which could conceivably have some effect are not -- I believe -- eligible.

[andycal]

I don't believe audio tweaks in general are eligible for the challenge.

Yeah, I should have been clearer in that. A tweak has to be paranormal AFAIK and as you say, an inert disk would indeed be paranormal if it worked as advertised.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear friends

This is the last atrium of arguments to use, and one of the very last posts I have planned to write. ...



And I eagerly await your last.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by alfaniner
And I eagerly await your last.
Hopefully they'll include something about conducting a DBT and applying for the million.

[Aerich]

Originally posted by trainman
P.S. for PSILOAD: I am finished with the cable controversy, but for you I will make a Postscript: From the interview of ONKYO’s chief designer Sekiya San in the last issue of the British magazine “Hi-Fi World�: Question: “Do you like special wiring?� SS’s answer: “Wiring can affect the sound tremendously, especially where used in the power supply line, at the speaker outputs and in the earth circuit. Our approach is to avoid wiring itself wherever possible, rather having to get into the need to select special types – we always design an amp’s layout for the shortest current signal transmission paths. We also use solid copper plate at critical points on the PCB, such as the earthing circuit and power supply to the power CMOS�. Now, PSILOAD, will you ask mr. Randi to call ONKYO’s chief designer for a Double Blind Test?

trainman, your problem is that you don't have the background to know how to interpret statements like these.

"Wiring can affect the sound tremendously" (if you do something stupid like using a wire too thin to handle the power load it will carry)

"Our approach is to avoid wiring itself wherever possible" -- interpret this as "We try to use printed circuit board traces for as many connections as possible, which reduces cost and increases reliability by minimizing the number of cable assemblies in the product."

"we always design an amp’s layout for the shortest current signal transmission paths" -- Note that "layout" refers to printed circuit board layout, not the sort of audiophile wires you are trying to justify, and no PCB layout technician worth his salary deliberately makes long connections.

"We also use solid copper plate at critical points on the PCB, such as the earthing circuit and power supply to the power CMOS." -- More standard design technique. It is completely normal for good PCB designers to use "solid copper plate" (i.e. large areas of copper plating left intact rather than etching wire-shaped patterns out of the plate) to distribute power and provide ground return paths. The reasons for doing so in no way justify spending tens, hundreds, or thousands of dollars per foot to pay for audiphile snake oil cables.

Essentially, this gentleman you have quoted was gently deflecting the question. He chose to discuss the completely standard wiring techniques used inside his products (printed circuit boards) rather than expounding on the technical merits or demerits of exotic audiophile cables.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by trainman
***snip***

P.S. for PSILOAD: I am finished with the cable controversy, but for you I will make a Postscript: From the interview of ONKYO’s chief designer Sekiya San in the last issue of the British magazine “Hi-Fi World�: Question: “Do you like special wiring?� SS’s answer: “Wiring can affect the sound tremendously, especially where used in the power supply line, at the speaker outputs and in the earth circuit. Our approach is to avoid wiring itself wherever possible, rather having to get into the need to select special types – we always design an amp’s layout for the shortest current signal transmission paths. We also use solid copper plate at critical points on the PCB, such as the earthing circuit and power supply to the power CMOS�. Now, PSILOAD, will you ask mr. Randi to call ONKYO’s chief designer for a Double Blind Test? That's not the way it works. This has been explained to you so many times that I'm left with only two possible conclusions:

1. You have a serious comprehension deficiency.

0r

2. You intentionally ignore, or misinterperet, any concept which conflicts with your preconceived notions.

If ONKYO's chief designer thinks he has a claim, he can fill out an application and submit it to the JREF for consideration.Why don't YOU contact him and suggest that he organize a DBT?

That was a rhetorical question... you won't. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you're unwilling to lift a finger towards anything positive or constructive. You prefer to wallow in your own ignorance and smug belligerence.

So that's where I'll leave you.

Good day, sir.

[trainman]

Waiting for the answers of the expert that the administrator has referred me too (JJ), or of any other expert (for instance mr. SCOTTH that ordered me to learn some physics), I don’t mind to comment one quite interesting post from Andycal.

My friend, the law of justice dictates to treat everyone equally under the same rules and values - and the law of humanity to be a bit keener to the weak. Many times though, we see that law inverted: People that don’t have the guts to fight against the big guns tire out their severity to the negligible. We all have a bit of that, including me of course.

So – to your question “Why should we care what the companies (sources) say� I can only answer with the question: “Why did you care in the first place?�. Both Golden Sound and Marantz claim that their tweaks are humanly perceptible and offer them upon a cost. Read again what mr. Randi has written about audiophiles and not only in the case of the chip.

And of course, I must admit that I should have better put my question the other way - “Is there any scientific law that…� – in order to avoid your last question and fall away.

I won’t write anything more on this today, for I will be waiting for the answer of the experts and the rest of the bunch of the “illuminators� and “fluorescents�, (will there be any answers?) but I hope you got my point. I will only add my assertion to you that I don’t laugh with my friends at the pub more than you did for me till now and that on my final post I will answer to some persistent questions in the way I judge it has to be done.

If you could only really be interested…

Your (abysmally stupid) troll!
Trainman

P.S.: Have you noted that the number of participants in the thread at these last and more serious pages of mine is getting suffocatingly small? I guess that the people are at the beaches…

P.S. for AERICH: My friend, you have intentionally excluded two phrases of the answer of Sekiya San (“especially where…circuit� and “need to select special types�) in order to get his clarifications into your own view – a typical approach. I also believe that the English language is big enough to contain a very very small word called “no�, to be used as an answer to a question of the sort of “do you like…� especially when someone wants to underline his thesis in an interview. And last: I have seen too many designs of power mains cable, in order to know that nobody uses a cable too thin to carry. However – it is thus if you believe so! Would you continue now, to mr. Ishiwata’s interview, please?

P.S. for PSILOAD's Godspeed: I remind you the provocative letters that mr. Randi sent to the audio tweakers like Peter Belt and Tice, as well as to the journalists that praised their products and mr. Atkinson, the editor of "Stereophile" - but not to ONKYO's chief designer. This is a rhetorical answer, though, since you won't read it. Good day, sir.

[andycal]

So – to your question “Why should we care what the companies (sources) say� I can only answer with the question: “Why did you care in the first place?�.

You keep answering questions with questions. Or even worse, putting questions in our mouths.

The fact is, many people didn't give a damn about what a tweak could/couldn't do, but then the tweaks got crazy, so someone said "Hey, prove it". That's all.

Just prove that an inert piece of plastic can make a difference.

Replying to the above with "Well, why did you ever believe it didn't/did in the future dear sir with whom I converse on a level basis with Godspeed...." etc...etc... is just avoiding the issue.

Look, here's how simple it is:

Skeptic: Prove it works

Bleever: Oh, ok - here's the test that proves it.

If (prooftype == 'DBT' && proof == 'better than chance') {

givemoneyto(recipient)

} else {

tellnutter(go away and try again)

}

Honestly, it's that easy. I know I'm saying "It's got to be double blind", but honestly, if it can be done double blind, then there can be no outside influence (such as a bank statement) that can help the testee decide.

Where's the problem?

And, if you're going to answer, rather than trying cod philosophy, why not just answer the question?

[Luke T.]

I hope you all will forgive me for not reading all nine mindnumbing pages of this topic and ask a question that someone else might have already asked, but it is just killing me and I have to know.

Trainman: If the differences between a sound recording treated with an "intelligent chip" and an untreated sound recording are too fine to be detected reliably with a double blind test, exactly why should anyone buy this product?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by andycal
Skeptic: Prove it works

Bleever: Oh, ok - here's the test that proves it.

If (prooftype == 'DBT' && proof == 'better than chance') {

givemoneyto(recipient)

} else {

tellnutter(go away and try again)

}

Honestly, it's that easy.

*snip*

And, if you're going to answer, rather than trying cod philosophy, why not just answer the question?
Precisely.

Trainman: Just do the test. That's all you have to do. All your posting has been pointless, fallacious ranting. Give us raw data so that we can talk about something with, you know, substance.

[Ducky]

I dropped off this thread for a while, but it's nice to see it's still the same crapola over and over.

trainman avoids taking the test by asking questions, putting words in our mouth and arguing about nothing.

Anyone have a good recipe for lamb stuffed grape leaves?

[Moochie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by trainman

<Snip>

MOOCHIE: My greetings to Australia. If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I agree with your spirit about musical enjoyment. The only thing I would like to convince you for, though, is to try yourself - and the sole arguments I would accept for not doing so, is that you are not interested or you are not willing to pay. I was offered to propose alternatives for the latter, but no one was interested – and so, we are again at the beginning.
(The world changed totally after the invention of the TV. That was the day that the battle for the book was lost for ever…)

Hi T,

You're right about me not being interested or willing to pay for what to me is akin to voodoo. The acquaintance I mentioned (the one with the very expensive audio/visual system) spends far more than he should on what is basically junk, and his family suffers for it. He has fallen for so much of this claptrap, that I'm afraid he's in too deep to now acknowledge that he has been foolish.

Oh, I should also mention that he regularly sees a homeopath -- but he's canny enough not to discard science-based medicine totally.

Of one thing I am convinced -- there is a placebo effect not only for bogus medicine, but also for bogus "technology" -- some people seem to have a need for buying this stuff.

Regards,

Moochie

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Moochie
Oh, I should also mention that he regularly sees a homeopath... Does it do anything for his sound? ;)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
Have you noted that the number of participants in the thread at these last and more serious pages of mine is getting suffocatingly small? Rest assured, we're still here. We just prefer not to comment when the thread goes into areas we're not qualified to talk about.

Unlike you.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
... on my final post I will answer to some persistent questions in the way I judge it has to be done.



I will be waiting with worms in my mouth.











































(baited breath)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by alfaniner

I will be waiting with worms in my mouth.
... (baited breath)


Dante had a special circle for the likes of you, alfie! (I missed it the first time - thought you'd gone around the bend for a mo').

[force_redo]

trainman,

lets keep this simple:
1.) I don't give a toss about Mr So-and-so of Whatnot Inc. and his impressions of audio design or Mr X of a highly acclaimed audio magazine
2.) I'm not interested whether or not other "tweaks" work or not

So, please spare me all of this.

What I'm interested in is:
1.) Can you, or can you not hear a difference between a "GSIC treated" and un"treated" CD in a situation where you don't know beforehand which is which.
2.) An answer to my earlier question: While you could convince me with a succsessful DBT that this GSIC works, what evidence would you need to believe that it doesn't?

FR

[trainman]

Dear participants – present or not

First of all, I’d like to give my greetings from this thread to Los Angeles that is going to pass a double blind test of the Intelligent Chip’s effect tomorrow. I firmly believe, in contrary with GR8WIGHT, that if she is serious about it (and the whole event is not just a pizza contest) she may be the first to prove the effect of an audio tweak without proven explanation about its operation. The same stands for BPSCG if he finally finds that the chip does make a difference.

Second, I cannot but welcome the return of Fowlsound who had stated that is finished with my thread – since, as a professional audio engineer, may clear up some subjects that I’ve already brought up and will put forward again in a better way, hoping the experts will break their silence for the last time.

- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that the material used for the chassis of a player or amplifier, could contribute to its sound? (excluding the laws of vibration behavior) – That a wooden chassis has a different sound to a copper one?
- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that the material used for the metalwork surrounding a mechanism, contributes to the perceived sound?
- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that two capacitors of the same value may contribute to the sound differently, and, even more, that the one may have a constant, predictable behavior, while the other “one day to sound one way and the next day differently�?

These are three, very easy and plane questions and I don’t see why some expert would avoid answering. The fact is though; I am not going to wait forever, so I would appreciate to be given at least an indication that someone is preparing it.

Now - I have to rewrite that the way I will handle my enterprise is mine and only. For instance, nobody here had any objection when Hans the philosopher argued that the chip has not been approved by the “credible companies� but when I started to write what the “credible companies� approve, two people declared that are leaving the thread and some others stated that they don’t care.

Well, friends, if you don’t care, it is your business. And if it happens to rejoice and have fun with the mocking of a “10$ swindle� but keep your eyes wide shut about some “credible� 700$ tweaks, it is your business also. What you cannot do however, is to deprive my right to comment it.

In the same way, ANDYCAL has every right to think that I am avoiding the issue when I don’t give him an answer how a piece of plastic works and I have any right to say that he is avoiding the issue when he is personally (like everyone else with the exception of BPSCG) refusing every proposition I have given to try some tweaks himself – waiting just for the day I would apply for the challenge. BRONZEDOG also has any right to believe that my whole post is a pointless and fallacious ranting without “raw substance� – and I have any right to say that absolutely the same stands for Mr. Randi when, as a stage magician (not an audio engineer, nor an audiophile) and without experimenting himself, has just to declare that a product is a swindle in order the “illuminators� to start scoffing in chorus. But again, since MOJO gives him this right (but not to me) Mr. Randi may continue thus.

I repeat that the very end is near and whoever has any patience, will be able to read my final word about this thread and return to his everyday life.

Trainman

[trainman]

LUKE T.: My friend, I never said that you should buy that product. And I will be frankly to tell you even, that the chip should be the last thing you should need in order to enjoy your music. I for instance, have more than 400 cd’s at home. To be treated with that chip, I would need at least 400 dollars that could assist to the purchase of a better player, or at least 20 cds.

I can imagine someone to buy this product, if he hopes he can get the best from his beloved cds, or if he’s got a good system and money to spend and he decides to tweak all of his discs. Some other, may spend 10$ for experimentation, or for a small slice of magick – the feeling that they have sharing something that works but science has not approved it. Tweaking generally, can be just a hobby, a neurosis, or an activity so serious and useful, as making a chopper bike for riding on an American highway with 40 mph.

By the way, I never said that the differences cannot be detected reliably by a DBT. I claim though, that this is not guaranteed under all circumstances and that I (me and only me, personally) didn’t judge that I had to pass a DBT in order to evaluate the effect of the chip.

MOOCHIE: Although you may not understand how, I agree with what you write. A mania is a mania though, regardless of kind: Your friend could be an alcoholic, a maniac gambler, a religious fanatic or a doctor spending his whole time attacking the doctrines of homeopathy.

FORCE_REDO: To keep things as simply as you wish: I can hear differences between treated and untreated cds without knowing which is which – some of them easily and some with difficulty – in my own space and system. At my work for instance, a place full with electronic equipment, computers and televisions, listening to music through my laptop is many times a nasty experience, with the perceived sound to be harsh and painful; I wouldn’t do ANY critical listening there. I haven’t tried the discs elsewhere; I believe that the possibilities are positive, but to which extend, I cannot guess. I know that my answer will not comfort you, but that is.

About your second question, I have already answered, but since I was not understood correctly I will repeat: The evidence I would need to be convinced I am fooled, would be if someone (the creator of the chip? A phychiatrist? A sorcerer?) could explain to me exactly how my fooling is done. And also, explain why it is easier for me to hear the difference on that cd and not on the other, why in one case I preferred the treated cd and on another a non-treated etc.. A stage magician like Mr. Randi can illustrate perfectly how he is fooling my eyes with his tricks with cards – but in the case of the chip, he is only calling upon my naivete, my ignorance or my illusion. Would that be enough for you if you were in my place?

ANDYCAL: I hate when someone insists that I put words in his mouth. What did I write that you didn’t say? Weren’t the “sources� chief designers of the companies of Marantz and Onkyo or not? And if you insist to be the n-th person to ask me why I don’t take the challenge, I invite you, either to come to Greece to test me yourself, or either finance my travel and stay for a week in another country - and not only me, but another person to keep an eye on the contest since it would be blind. The only person that agreed to spend some money in this case, was BPSCG and that would be 10 bucks for the cds – a great contribution indeed!

And another comment, I am sure you will by-pass: I won’t demand to explain and be specific about what do you exactly mean by “the tweaks gone crazy�, illustrate when exactly that happened, define the “craziness� etc..; I would demand from you though, to demand from a so called “Educational Foundation� to give such answers before scoffing.

[Moochie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mojo
Does it do anything for his sound? ;) [/QUOTE

Yes, he has a 30x version of The Eagles Hell Freezes Over CD which sounds like white noise. Go figure...

[Moochie]

MOOCHIE: Although you may not understand how, I agree with what you write. A mania is a mania though, regardless of kind: Your friend could be an alcoholic, a maniac gambler, a religious fanatic or a doctor spending his whole time attacking the doctrines of homeopathy.


Heh heh heh...

It happens "my friend" occupies a very responsible position in commerce. He's not particularly religious, but is rather naive when it comes to matters concerning the love of his life: his audio/visual system.

It seems more than a few of us have a need for "magical thinking."

Regards,

Moochie

[andycal]

Trainman, come on, you're a troll 'aint ya?

Honestly, read what you've just written and think about it. You're either taking us for a ride, or you're a wide-eyed loon with a permanent grin on your face.

or either finance my travel and stay for a week in another country - and not only me, but another person to keep an eye on the contest since it would be blind

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's brilliant!

Tell you what, we'll finance you and your friends to come to Florida for a week in the sun to test it out. Oh yeah, great idea, tell you what, I'll throw in some tickets to Disney Land.

Why don't we do this for everyone? Free holidays for woo-woos!

[steenkh]

BTW, andycal, are you the same person that writes under the name andycal at the NCH (Pakistani Homoeopathic Forum) (http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=78)?

[Bronze Dog]

By the way, I never said that the differences cannot be detected reliably by a DBT. I claim though, that this is not guaranteed under all circumstances and that I (me and only me, personally) didn’t judge that I had to pass a DBT in order to evaluate the effect of the chip.
We say you do. That's what'd it take to convince us, and none of your fallacious, venom-spitting, whiny posts will change that minimum standard.

All your evasions just tell us that you're only here to hear the sound of your own typing and feed your fragile ego, and not to convince us. If you want to prove otherwise, heed the following big words:

Put up or shut up.

[69dodge]

trainman, you seem very interested in the question of which audio tweaks Mr. Randi chooses to scoff at, and not so interested in the question of which audio tweaks actually work. You keep asking, "why doesn't Randi challenge so-and-so to a double-blind test?" Who cares who Randi challenges? The interesting question is, "would so-and-so pass a double-blind test?" If he wouldn't, then he is just imagining things, no matter how famous and well-respected he is.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by 69dodge
The interesting question is, "would so-and-so pass a double-blind test?" If he wouldn't, then he is just imagining things, no matter how famous and well-respected he is.
And one more consideration: Even if you cannot hear a tweak, there is still a difference between tweaks that actually can change the sound, and those that cannot under any circumstances.

And there is a difference between those tweak producers who produce something that actually does something, and those who know that they are producing a fraudulent product.

(Edited to correct spelling mitsake)

[andycal]

Originally posted by steenkh
BTW, andycal, are you the same person that writes under the name andycal at the NCH (Pakistani Homoeopathic Forum) (http://www.nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=78)?

No, I'm not.... And I've just had a look - some cretin, and I guess it's a homeopath, is obviously using my name having seen it here.

However I do have a login over there - I'll go kick some ass.

[force_redo]

trainman,

I can hear differences between treated and untreated cds without knowing which is which – some of them easily and some with difficulty – in my own space and system.

Good. But why not proove it to yourself and others by conducting a simple DBT? What harm can it do?

The evidence I would need to be convinced I am fooled, would be if someone (the creator of the chip? A phychiatrist? A sorcerer?) could explain to me exactly how my fooling is done.

That's what people on this thread have been trying to do for nine pages now. Maybe you don't respect their judgements, since nobody here identified himself as a psychiatrist, but maybe this might help to make a point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception

FR

[trainman]

Don't waite for an answer Trainman. JJ keeps his silence and will keep it to the end - unless he decides that the time for speaking is after your departure. Scotth has returned to his precious radar - no time for physics and Maxwell's equations, Aerich has to interpret another interview and has no time, Powa dissapeared after you proposed him to try a free tweak and as for Fowlsound, he is probably playing his oboe with his mouth shut.

But hey - Force_Redo comes with a vengeance: He has an explanation for your case; If you don't appreciate 9 pages of proposals to apply or leave the stage, he has a whole definition about self-deception from an encyclopedia! Isn't a whole definition enough for you Trainman to understand how you are self deceived?

"Who cares about what Randi challenges?" Nobody of course! We are accidentaly here. We don't know even what all that JREF stands for, we cannot remember how we were carried to that discussion. Suddenly, nothing matters - we don't even demand scientifical evidence since we know who produces something that actually does something, and who produce a fraudulent product.

Yeah; we know without scientific evidence and without having listening ourselves - but that is not paranormal, for we are sceptics, remember? And sceptics, don't have to give any explanation to anyone.

So, come on Trainman. Amuse them. Apply for the challenge, travel abroad, pay a month's salary to humor them with a preliminary test. You may not be so amusing like their stage magician and his articles but you have something to give, too.

Come on Trainman
Pay up, or shut up.

[Powa]

Originally posted by trainman
P.S. for POWA: You misread my answer. I urged you to try “a simple antistatic varnishing liquid for furniture (like Pronto) for the label side�, not the side of the cd that is read by the laser. And my answer was just one, sole, lousy paragraph…
Yes, you're right, I misunderstood what you said, but since I know nothing about static affecting the reading of a CD, I never replied. I was hoping someone would pick it up. Is static buildup on a disc really a problem? Anyone?

snip... , Powa dissapeared after you proposed him to try a free tweak... snip
That was rather rude and I appologize.

So, come on Trainman. Amuse them. Apply for the challenge, travel abroad, pay a month's salary to humor them with a preliminary test.
What are you talking about? The test can be arranged close to you, so little or no travel would be necessary.

Besides, what's a little gas money compared to $1 million? You claim the chip works. Go and demonstrate it. What's the problem?

[Terry]

Originally posted by trainman

WONDERING and ASKING…


Everyone interested in the whole interview, may request to post it. For the rest, please accept my apologies for the long and tiresome quoting. I had to do it though, in order to ask our experts here:

1) By which scientific law (Maxwell’s equations, so keen to SCOTTH, etc.) “every component, including the chassis, influences the sound and imposes its distinct character on the player�. How can a copper chassis give a different sound to a chassis made of lead, zing, aluminium, gold, silver – with the exception of vibration behaviour of course, which is NOT mentioned by the designer.

2) By which scientific law, the copper plated surroundings of a mechanism can give a “silky tonal balance� to the sound.

3) By which scientific law, the use of copper wire to the power supply can give more speed to the sound than the use of silver wire or golden wire.

4) By which scientific law, the type of capacitors can create big differences in the tonal balance, even if they’re the same value.

5) By which scientific law, the sound that a capacitor gives (which sound?) may be inconsistent and “one day they sound one way and the next day they’re different� – while another capacitor may be “consistent� and “predictable�.
[...]
I want your straight, documented and “scientifically indisputably evident answer� on my questions. You may guess why…

I am waiting dear skeptics…

Trainman

I don't want to guess why. Tell us why. Suppose I think of a mechanism that could account for some of these effects. The capacitor one for instance. What then? If I can't think of a mechanism, what does that prove?

And as for the capacitors, a real-life capacitor is not a perfect device. Two caps of the same nominal value may measure as quite different values. Furthermore, different constructions of caps which measure the same capacitance may have differing values of series resistance and inductance. The dielectric may be more or less lossy at particular frequencies. The value may change in a different way with temperature. And so on. So it seems that substituting a cap in the signal path could alter the overall response of the system. But the question is, can you actually tell the difference? Thats where things like this (http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_caps.htm) come in.

--Terry.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by trainman
I firmly believe, in contrary with GR8WIGHT, that if she is serious about it (and the whole event is not just a pizza contest) she may be the first to prove the effect of an audio tweak without proven explanation about its operation.


Don't put words in my mouth, schmuck! I said that a failed test was meaningless if the applicant was not a believer. A passed test is a passed test, and would provide validation to the GSIC regardless of who is doing the listening. Care to place a small wager on the outcome of LA's test?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
Yeah; we know without scientific evidence and without having listening ourselves - but that is not paranormal, for we are sceptics, remember? And sceptics, don't have to give any explanation to anyone.We have good scientific reasons to believe that the GSIC doesn't---can't---affect a CD's sound. We've tried to explain those reasons to you, but you weren't interested in learning how CDs and CD players work. You just continued to insist that the GSIC does make a difference in the sound and that you could hear that difference. Well, if you really can hear the difference blind, you can win a million dollars.

If you don't apply for the challenge, what should we think? That you have some mysterious reason for not wanting a million dollars? Or that actually you can't hear any difference?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by andycal
No, I'm not.... And I've just had a look - some cretin, and I guess it's a homeopath, is obviously using my name having seen it here.Judging by the style of language used, it's either one of the MAS collective or someone else from their part of the world.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Mojo
Judging by the style of language used, it's either one of the MAS collective or someone else from their part of the world. The content of their posts, e.g.: When you have denied the action of drugs under avogadros limit then what else you want to discuss....makes it bleeding obvious that this is the work of the MAS collective, as the idea that "skeptics" have said this orginates entirely in their imaginations.

edited to add: I said that the extra button would cause me confusion! :) I was actually trying to edit my previous post.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that the material used for the chassis of a player or amplifier, could contribute to its sound? (excluding the laws of vibration behavior) – That a wooden chassis has a different sound to a copper one?
- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that the material used for the metalwork surrounding a mechanism, contributes to the perceived sound?
- Is there any physical law (and who) that would enable someone to suggest that two capacitors of the same value may contribute to the sound differently, and, even more, that the one may have a constant, predictable behavior, while the other “one day to sound one way and the next day differently�?What are the words "and who" doing here? Are you attempting to anthropomorphise the laws of physics?

And by the way, are you a steam train man? As far as I remember from my childhood, steam trains used to go "woo woo."

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
By the way, I never said that the differences cannot be detected reliably by a DBT. I claim though, that this is not guaranteed under all circumstances ...Under what circumstances do you think the difference can be guaranteed to be detected? Would you be prepared to perform a test if it was carried out under these circumstances? ... and that I (me and only me, personally) didn’t judge that I had to pass a DBT in order to evaluate the effect of the chip. If you can't tell the difference without being told which is which, how can you possibly think that you're able to evaluate it?

[ktesibios]

Originally posted by Terry
I don't want to guess why. Tell us why. Suppose I think of a mechanism that could account for some of these effects. The capacitor one for instance. What then? If I can't think of a mechanism, what does that prove?

And as for the capacitors, a real-life capacitor is not a perfect device. Two caps of the same nominal value may measure as quite different values. Furthermore, different constructions of caps which measure the same capacitance may have differing values of series resistance and inductance. The dielectric may be more or less lossy at particular frequencies. The value may change in a different way with temperature. And so on. So it seems that substituting a cap in the signal path could alter the overall response of the system. But the question is, can you actually tell the difference? Thats where things like this (http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_caps.htm) come in.

--Terry.

Umm... I can't complain about doing a DBT to determine the audibility of differences in caps, but "polypropylene vs. ceramic" is a gross oversimplification.

There are several different ceramic formulations used as the dielectric in ceramic caps. Some are aimed at achieving the highest possible dielectric constant, to pack the most capacitance into the smallest package possible, and others are aimed at optimizing parameters like temperature coefficient, dissipation factor and linearity.

The fact that the ceramic caps used in their test changed value with increasing temperature enough to alter the low freq cutoff produced by the capacitor's reactance and the input resistance of the load strongly suggests that they were using ceramics made with the Y5V dielectric, as does the fact that these caps produced significant THD when their reactance was significant with respect to the load resistance (you can demonstrate much the same thing by using a tantalum electrolytic as part of a first-order RC highpass filter, measuring THD down near the cutoff frequency of the filter and then repeating the measurement with an aluminum electrolytic of the same value. Tantalums exhibit more non-linearity, i.e., more voltage dependence of their capacitance, than do aluminums, which is why tantalums have largely been dropped as coupling caps in audio circuitry.) Y5V caps also act as piezoelectric transducers, moreso than lower dielectric constant formulations- I've discovered through experience that the little suckers can be amazingly microphonic.

If they had compared polypropylenes with ceramics made with the COG (formerly NPO) dielectric, the results of their listening test might well have been very different. COGs have much better linearity, a very low temperature coefficient and are much less microphonic. However, because the COG dielectric has a relatively low dielectric constant, COGs in values large enough to use as coupling caps at typical audio amp internal impedances are difficult to impossible to find. Of course, they could have paralleled a bunch of them to get the desired value.

IIRC, the late Deane Jensen wrote a paper for the AES on this very subject- ceramics and their place in audio circuitry, which contained much the same information as I've tried to explain here. Also IIRC, there's something about the subject in his AES paper on the design of the JE990 discrete op-amp.

As I said, I can't fault doing a DBT as a means of comparison, but it would have helped if they had informed themselves a little better about the materials involved.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by trainman
Snip....
FORCE_REDO: To keep things as simply as you wish: I can hear differences between treated and untreated cds without knowing which is which – some of them easily and some with difficulty – in my own space and system.
Son using your gear, with treated and untreated CD's you can tell the difference. On CD's you have treated yourself? Or CD's others have treated for you?
Pu-Leeze!

[Terry]

Originally posted by ktesibios
Umm... I can't complain about doing a DBT to determine the audibility of differences in caps, but "polypropylene vs. ceramic" is a gross oversimplification.

which is what it said on the ABX page. The method is the relavant thing, not the particular result.

--Terry.

[force_redo]

trainman,

I have to admit I don't understand half of your last posting. However, I try to reply to the bits I do understand.

Why people are not respoding anymore? Well, let's see:
You make a claim about a paranormal ability you have. You refuse to do a test to support this claim. Everything else you talk about is either irrelevant in connection with this claim or debunked within minutes (or both). Since then, there's nothing new from you anymore, not even your announced 'grande finale'. And since this forum is something people spend their spare time with, I don't think threre's any obligation to answer to the same old over and over again.

Isn't a whole definition enough for you Trainman to understand how you are self deceived?

I don't know. Is it?

"Who cares about what Randi challenges?" Nobody of course!

Not? I thought you did. Why else would you start a discussion here?

we know without scientific evidence and without having listening ourselves - but that is not paranormal

No, it's not. Nobody here claims to have paranormal abilities. Only you do. But you don't want to or aren't able to prove it.
What do you want us to do? Prove it for you? We can't. You have to come up with the next step.

Apply for the challenge, travel abroad, pay a month's salary to humor them with a preliminary test.

If you would read what people here are trying to tell you, you would have understood by now that maybe there's no need to travel very far to do the test. These tests aren't carried out by the JREF, but by some group hopefully close to you.

Read some of the challange application discussions and you'll see how it works.

FR

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
So, come on Trainman. Amuse them. Apply for the challenge, travel abroad, pay a month's salary to humor them with a preliminary test. You may not be so amusing like their stage magician and his articles but you have something to give, too.
I can't believe you guys are still giving trainman serious responses.

From THE VERY FIRST RESPONSE IN THIS THREAD to Trainman's OP:
Originally posted by Psiload
Lucky for you, you needn't travel to the U.S. to be tested. I'm sure the JREF would have no problem finding a qualified representative to conduct the tests in Europe, or quite possibly on your very own home island.

Now... I'll leave you to dream up another lameass excuse.

Carry on.
Now if after 10 pages of repeating the same things to trainman over and over he STILL refuses to acknowledge simple facts, why do you think he is suddenly going to start?

Trainman, if you are wondering why the responses have gone down in number this thread, this is an excellent example as to why that might be.

There's only so many times most people are interested in saying the same thing to someone who is deliberately ignoring them.

Good luck in your forthcoming application - I believe Randi has a slot available for you shortly after hell freezes over. Unless a flock of flying pigs interfere with the preliminary test.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
Don't waite for an answer Trainman. JJ keeps his silence and will keep it to the end - unless he decides that the time for speaking is after your departure. Scotth has returned to his precious radar - no time for physics and Maxwell's equations, Aerich has to interpret another interview and has no time, Powa dissapeared after you proposed him to try a free tweak and as for Fowlsound, he is probably playing his oboe with his mouth shut.

But hey - Force_Redo comes with a vengeance: He has an explanation for your case; If you don't appreciate 9 pages of proposals to apply or leave the stage, he has a whole definition about self-deception from an encyclopedia! Isn't a whole definition enough for you Trainman to understand how you are self deceived?

"Who cares about what Randi challenges?" Nobody of course! We are accidentaly here. We don't know even what all that JREF stands for, we cannot remember how we were carried to that discussion. Suddenly, nothing matters - we don't even demand scientifical evidence since we know who produces something that actually does something, and who produce a fraudulent product.

Yeah; we know without scientific evidence and without having listening ourselves - but that is not paranormal, for we are sceptics, remember? And sceptics, don't have to give any explanation to anyone.

So, come on Trainman. Amuse them. Apply for the challenge, travel abroad, pay a month's salary to humor them with a preliminary test. You may not be so amusing like their stage magician and his articles but you have something to give, too.

Come on Trainman
Pay up, or shut up.

A rather strange format for a post. Is it talking to itself, Precioussssss?

Or is it a sock puppet logged in under the wrong ID?

Nevertheless, I don't care. Just thought I'd point it out.

[Bronze Dog]

Still no DBT. Still spraying out the lie about having to travel. Stop wasting our time, trainman. Conduct the test.

Trainman, if your next post isn't about setting up a DBT or applying for the challenge, I will interpret it as a declaration of forfeiture.

[Bronze Dog]

Here's a post that caught my attention. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871032905#post1871032905)

[trainman]

I started this thread, in order to attack a certain narrow-mindness, and an assurance that comes, not from experience but from belief. I grasped the opportunity that James Randi gave me with his provocative insults against the audiophiles that would accept the validity of certain audio tweaks, including the Golden Sound Intelligent Chip. My thread was called “Audio Tweaks and the Double Blind Test Cult� and was not supposed to defend the chip exclusively.

Every thing I have written is true, with the sole exception of my identity as “student� that accompanied my surname: I didn’t choose it (at least intentionally) and when I noticed it, I judged it was too late to change it. My sincere apologies to everyone that was tangled by that description.

My status to enter that discussion was my piano studies from the age of 5,5 till 17, as well as my occupation with audio for the last 15 years. My knowledge of electrical theory was basic – from the physics of our high schools (more advanced than the ones in America) and the ones at the technical university I had entered, without finishing it, though, since my plans changed in the process.


AUDIO TWEAKS


The audio tweaks, (products and methods for fine tuning and improving the sound of an audio system) remains a highly controversial matter. I would generally divide them into three categories

a) Tweaks that are generally accepted from the audio community – with technical and empirical back up: Such tweaks are the bi-wiring of loudspeakers (no more a tweak but a designers choice), the support of audio equipment with anti-vibration devices (sorbothan feet or cones – the latter used from mass production companies like TEAC in their ordinary products), or the mains supply filters.

b) Tweaks that their efficiency has not yet been approved scientifically but may be accepted empirically and psychologically – like the cryogenical treatment of cables, the use of super tweeters, or devices that claim to battle a supposed influence of static charges on the reading of the cd. From the latter, I will personally mention “Blacklight� – a product of “Audioprism� (the inventor of the scoffed “green pen�), that, at my system at least, only a deaf person would not discern its effect. The products of this category, may have not the approbation of science, but at least are given the right to apply for its tolerance: The cryogenic treatment of a cable for instance, may have not a scientific back up for improving the latter's technical and audio characteristics, but one can imagine that the treatment may have some kind of effect at the structure of the conductor or its dielectric. I would classify mr. Ishiwata’s tweaks in the second category.

c) Tweaks that their effect borders on paranormal or non-existent: Such are the shakti stones, the “intelligent chip�, the Bedini clarifier or the products of Peter Belt. I have to mention here that the latter, a “pioneer� in that “field�, at least admits that there is no theory that could justify the effects that his products feature, and that his virtually “insane� theoretical attempts are balanced with a policy of free trial.

The differences between the devices of the second and third category were in my eyes more psychological than real – the products of the second category seem to be waiting for their approval from science in the future as the theory that accompanies them seems more “logical�; as such, they inspire the hope that some day, the secret that evades even the understanding of their creators will be revealed. What about the first category though? Are its secrets fully revealed? Is the influence of electromagnetic waves, of ionization, or of the presence of certain materials on the human sensual perception fully covered? And, do we really know why are certain people sensitive to certain colours (positively or negatively), or why would some prefer to be surrounded by wood rather than glass?

Everyone’s answer to the questions above, delimits, (at least in his mind) and the competence of the science of today to have the final word on the matters of human perception. James Randi’s “Educational Foundation� skips over all these matters, but claims the right to stamp every product that chooses so, as a “swindle�, passing the responsibility of proving the opposite, to the creators of the product and to its users.


AUDIOPHILES


Audiophilia can be a destructive neurosis and a mania but also, a serious occupation. Audiophiles are usually peaceful and harmless people. Many of them are just loners that are lead to a one-dimensional pass-time; others are lovers of music that are just trying to increase their enjoyment having understood the interpretative limits of their system. For others, audiophilia is a journey, a constant experiment, a matter of curiosity.

I personally accepted if not justified, every objection one may had over the usefulness of this search. For any serious evaluation of the validity of its results though, I demanded the personal involvement.


SCEPTICS


A “proverb� I have heard, claimed that “for a believer a miracle is not necessary and for a sceptic, the miracles are never enough�. In our case, the sceptics (with maybe the exception of one person) denied in every possible way, to have any personal involvement in the evaluation of a “paranormal� audio tweak.

To insult someone for a claim that you could search yourself without doing so, was to my eyes an act of fear, if not a truly unethical act. The James Randi Foundation, till now proves to be sharing both: There are always people able and ready to detect every “ten dollar swindle� but not one to inform its leader for the claims of famous designers of the multinational giants.

The sceptics in the line of James Randi, know very well how to demand technical explanations and DBTs from small negligible companies that would sell their dozen dollar stuff to a few audiophiles, but they seem to kneel in front of the industrial colossus with the strong legal departments. There, the ears, eyes and mouths shut up with the same fierce that a “dog of reason� would order me to do.


DECEPTION - SELF DECEPTION – AUTOSUGGESTION


Deception and self deception is not a question that someone should bypass or appeal to, easily. Illusion is the basis of the whole science, art and industry of entertainment and its rules are well documented. For decades, a dog searching his master in the funnel of a gramophone was the badge of the record industry. Every technician in the movie industry should be able to explain how the wheels of a car that moves forward may seem to rotate backwards. Every technician in the audio industry should be able to explain how a hi-fi system creates in a lounge, sonic images of a singer that is not present.

Modern techniques in audio aim to fool the ear, to perceive that a loudspeaker is actually bigger than it is in reality, or that a system may reproduce higher harmonics that are not present in the recording.

In case of scientifically unexplained audio tweaks, the reference to self deception bears no evidence of the introduction of a documented explanation, or even an attempt to that direction. It is more or less, an easy way to finish with the evidence of others through a claim that easily fits everywhere, or a method for self-reassurance through the disparagement of the “naïve�.

The version of autosuggestion is a more polite variant of self-deception. “Trying to see if there are any differences with the use of a tweak, you listen more carefully and you may discover thus, elements that you didn’t notice before�. It is a logical scheme that could fit in the case of the experience of a more detailed sound – but not in the case of a brighter, warmer, softer, quicker, slower perception.

The blind tests are proposed as barriers to deception and autosuggestion and so, equally, their conduct should be a sane choice for the rejection of that kind of explanation.


THE DOUBLE BLIND TEST


I never underestimated the value of Double Blind Test, as some would think. I have of course declared that for me (me and only) a double blind test was not indispensable to judge the effects of a tweak like the “intelligent chip�, and that, in the context of the search of paranormal, a positive result would not prove whether there is an effect of the tweak itself or just a “paranormal� ability of the subject under test. In any case, I have admitted that, in order to persuade someone that insists on the conduct of such a test, I should play in his own field; in order to illustrate what I have written above though, I was obliged to bypass the subject and just give at times glimpses of my approach.

Although I insist that the evaluation of an audio tweak lies in the mobility of any person interested, and I am steady in that position, I wouldn’t overlook the sincere interlocutor that would state that he is not an experienced listener and he is unable to discern differences between two sonic interpretations.

Even in that case though, the conduct of a Double Blind Test would brood risks regarding its credibility – and here is the point that its defenders abandon their argumentation; for the extent of the dangers of misevaluation, where acoustic memory is included, is unknown.

An experienced wine tester may be able to tell the descent and the age of the wine he tests – but he knows that he must not in any case, drink that wine, for he could not be able to return to his previous “neutral� condition. Is it possible, and to what extent, for a listener subject to a double blind test, to return to a previous state of perception, after he would have experienced (in reality or under his own illusion) an increased audio enjoyment that a tweak would have bring?

The answer is obvious: If you don’t feel ready for that test, don’t take it, but it is your responsibility to prove your paranormal claims. “JREF is a challenge, not a contest. Take it, or leave the stage�.

As I have illustrated in my posts, the risks of taking the challenge are not in any way negligible. Tweaks (even accepted ones) that are discernable under certain conditions seem totally insignificant and with only just audible effect under others. A possible failure of the subject “in a test of paranormal claims�, could have considerable consequences in his professional life, since his mental integrity could be under dispute.

JREF’s polemics are equalized by a very tempting financial reward though. One million dollars is not something that someone would ignore anyway, and the sceptics in the forum did not loose the opportunity to add that reward to their polemics; a complete answer in my part, should not ignore it.

With an adventurer’s soul or a provocative mind and pushing aside any inhibition, I could apply for taking the challenge. Since there is no sceptic institution in Greece (with the exception of one sole person that holds a sceptic web page), I should travel abroad for the preliminary test.

Being serious about the results and, (if you wish), with an eye to the million, I should require from the testers to deposit the series of samples to a notary in order to compare them with my notes and declare officially the result of the test. Since the latter would be blind, I should carry a second person with me, to watch if the testers follow the pre-ordained series or not.

Taking into account that in my country there are not more people believing to paranormal claims than anywhere else in the so-called civilised world, I should be ready to pay for the travel and a week’s expenses abroad for two persons, as well as the notary – just for the preliminary test.

That would be still far away from the million; but would it be at least enough for my interlocutors in the JREF’s forum? Of course not. I could as well fool the Germans but what about the Big Randi? I would have to be prepared for the formal test that would be carried in the States.

For travelling to the States, it would require a visa and for the visa, I would have to pass a humiliating interview in the American Embassy, where, among others, I should answer to the question whether I am a member of any political party in Greece and which – an answer that is required the last 50 years. And in our days, a rude reply to a bureaucrat can be a very dangerous thing.

After obtaining the two visas, I should pay for two people for travelling staying and returning from the States, the notary for sure, but also for a lawyer for defending my rights (whatever that would mean) as every defendant in the Challenge does. I should expect and be able to pay the lawyer in advance, since I don’t see which lawyer would accept to be paid after my winning a million dollars in a contest of paranormal.

Being able to accept all that, I would take the Double Blind Test and my partner should be able and ready to beat a top range stage magician that I would expect to try, not just to conduct the test, but (me being the first to pass the preliminary test) defend the huge amount of One Million Dollars in every way.

I should be able and ready and willing to enter into that financial Golgotha with the sole HOPE that this One Million Dollars does exist indeed.

If I have missed something, or misinterpret something else, I hope that the kind moderator of this Forum (for whom J. Randi warns that I must “not expect him to also be deaf, dumb and blind�) will correct me accordingly, officially and validly.

As it stands though, I can only declare my readiness to assist to any serious research in the quest of the paranormal in audio tweaks and being tested at home, or in the context of some consultation and cooperation with a serious group of researchers (that would include and some kind of a financial compromise) to be lead to a travel abroad. I also allow the kind moderator to hand down my mail address, in case that such an assistance from my part would be required.

As for my friends and enemies, illuminators and obscurants, gentle and gross, malefic and well-wishing, music lovers and music haters, blacks and whites, ignorant and knowledgeable, believers and sceptics, I cannot but activate a warning I conveyed in the very first page of that thread:

“The Trainman. I don’t like him. But my papa says we have to do what the Trainman says, or else he will leave us here forever and ever�.

24/08/2005
Andreas Makrides – aka Trainman
Athens, Greece

[Bronze Dog]

I'll read the rest some other time, but this stood out:

In our case, the sceptics (with maybe the exception of one person) denied in every possible way, to have any personal involvement in the evaluation of a “paranormal� audio tweak.
Liar!
We offered you a million dollars if you could conduct a proper test observed by a JREF representative.

Lost Angeles personally applied for the JREF challenge over the GSIC chip and lost.

[kevin]

An experienced wine tester may be able to tell the descent and the age of the wine he tests – but he knows that he must not in any case, drink that wine, for he could not be able to return to his previous “neutral� condition. Is it possible, and to what extent, for a listener subject to a double blind test, to return to a previous state of perception, after he would have experienced (in reality or under his own illusion) an increased audio enjoyment that a tweak would have bring?


Audible memory doesn't matter when all you're trying to discern is if there is a difference in sound. Same for the wine taster if all you're trying to ascertain is if the wine came from the same bottle or not. And I'm pretty sure wine tasters not drinking has less to do with cleansing the palate (which is usually done with water or bread) and more to do with not getting hammered and having that affect their judgement of later wines.

Determining if a sound is better or worse with a particular device/treatment/etc.... comes after deciding if the sound has been changed at all.

Double blind removes the pyschology from the test. quick example, doctor testing a new drug. Doesn't use double-blind so he knows who has the placebo and who has the real drug.

Doctor goes to patient A, knowing patient is on placebo, gets report of no effects. Writes that down.

Doctor goes to patient B, knowing patient is on real drug, gets report of no effects. Asks "are you sure?". Patient changes answer sensing from the question that they've given the "wrong" answer.

The doctor, probably unintentionally, is changing the results. Same in an audio test. If you run a test and your prompting the testee for answers "Now doesn't that sound better?" you've invalidated the test.

Double-blind is the only effective way of insuring the test is done with out pre-concieved notions interfering. And, in audio tests, your just trying to see if there is a discernable difference so that you can reliably tell the difference between the two.

Now I'll admit their are some people with better ears than others, but that should enable them to be even better at the double-blind test since that test removes other factors than just the sound.

[skepHick]

Regarding the titles and general context of Trainman's posts - am I the only one getting the whole Ted Kaczynski (aka Unabomber) Manifesto vibe? Just a thought.

NOTE: I'm in no way implying that Trainman would harm anyone. It's just the whole delusion of grandeur tone I'm getting from his posts that made the thought pop into my head.

[Bronze Dog]

Well said, kevin.

Additional note that should be bleedingly obvious (sorry if I'm offending any UK friends with that): Being blinded doesn't change the sound, the wine, or anything else. It just prevents you from feeding your bias. Therefore, there's no reason not to DB.

Think I noticed something how the poor, poor manufacturers would be out of business if they had to DBT all their products.

LA, if you're reading, how much did your test cost?

Just to make sure: LA tested and failed, Wellfed chickened out, as did trainman. Think I remember SBPSC... BPSCP... What's-his-name buying a chip to DBT. Anyone know which thread that was?

[Metullus]

So, you won't take the challenge because:

1. You won't take a weekend trip to Italy, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, or any of the other European countries that have sceptic organizations to take a test that will net $1 million.

2. You might need to travel to the US for the final test.

3. The protocol, whatever it will be, will be onerous and just not worth the trouble.

4. Randi will personally use his magic skills to cheat you if you win.

5. Anyway the money might not exist regardless of what the IRS or Goldman Sachs think.

What a load of RULE(8).

Same old *****, all over again...

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Metullus
Same old *****, all over again...
I heard that. (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
*snip*
Think I remember SBPSC... BPSCP... What's-his-name buying a chip to DBT. Anyone know which thread that was?
This thread. He will be doing the test after the 26th.

I am doing the banana test using traintroll's protocol.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Think I remember SBPSC... BPSCP... What's-his-name buying a chip to DBT. Anyone know which thread that was? That's Mister BPSCG to you, BronzeDog...

Anyway, yeah, I got the chip, about two days before I went on vacation. I got back just this past weekend and intend to do the first test this coming weekend.

I plan to use a solo vocalist album, with either acoustic guitar or piano accompaniment. I want to get an album (actually two of the same album - one for GSIC treatment) that has as little control-room interference as possible - minimal added reverberation and such. I want as close to the sound of a real human voice and a real guitar or piano as possible. I'm thinking along the lines of a Gordon Lightfoot album or somesuch, but would welcome suggestions.

Once I start getting results - remember, I said I was going to try this on as many people as I could - I'll start a new thread, posting the results.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's Mister BPSCG to you, BronzeDog...

Anyway, yeah, I got the chip, about two days before I went on vacation. I got back just this past weekend and intend to do the first test this coming weekend.

I plan to use a solo vocalist album, with either acoustic guitar or piano accompaniment. I want to get an album (actually two of the same album - one for GSIC treatment) that has as little control-room interference as possible - minimal added reverberation and such. I want as close to the sound of a real human voice and a real guitar or piano as possible. I'm thinking along the lines of a Gordon Lightfoot album or somesuch, but would welcome suggestions.

Once I start getting results - remember, I said I was going to try this on as many people as I could - I'll start a new thread, posting the results.
Okay. Got that. Mister BPMSG. (Okay, I kid, BPSCG. Need to come up with some mnemonic device.)

Out of curiousity, about how much money do you think it's going to cost you overall to perform this test?

[Metullus]

Not that anybody cares, but I will be using Weird Al's "Dare to be Stupid" CD.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's Mister BPSCG to you, BronzeDog...

Anyway, yeah, I got the chip, about two days before I went on vacation. I got back just this past weekend and intend to do the first test this coming weekend.

I plan to use a solo vocalist album, with either acoustic guitar or piano accompaniment. I want to get an album (actually two of the same album - one for GSIC treatment) that has as little control-room interference as possible - minimal added reverberation and such. I want as close to the sound of a real human voice and a real guitar or piano as possible. I'm thinking along the lines of a Gordon Lightfoot album or somesuch, but would welcome suggestions.

Once I start getting results - remember, I said I was going to try this on as many people as I could - I'll start a new thread, posting the results.

I recomend Disk 4 of the boxed set..--but 2 of them would be expensive...
The Sundown album has a good mix. If the GSIC can improve "The Watchman's Gone", I'll buy one! That's about as close to perfect as it gets already.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
Is it possible, and to what extent, for a listener subject to a double blind test, to return to a previous state of perception, after he would have experienced (in reality or under his own illusion) an increased audio enjoyment that a tweak would have bring?I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that maybe someone shouldn't do a blind test on a tweak they like, because if it fails the test, that will lessen their future enjoyment of it?

That's a good point, I'll agree, sort of like asking whether a doctor should prescribe a placebo if he thinks it will calm the patient. No easy answer to that, I guess.

But then you're basically admitting that the tweak doesn't really improve the sound; it just makes people think that it improves the sound. Which is what everyone here has been saying all along.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Okay. Got that. Mister BPMSG. (Okay, I kid, BPSCG. Need to come up with some mnemonic device.)Howabout Battersea Power Station Community Group (not that it has anything to do with my username, but google Battersea Power Station for some interesting photos...)
Out of curiousity, about how much money do you think it's going to cost you overall to perform this test? Well, it was about $17.00 for the GSIC (including shipping and tax), and what, ten or fifteen bucks per CD? Under fifty bucks total. I suppose you could add in cost of electrcity each time I do the test, cost of entertaining my guests, cost of wear on the living room sofa they'll sit on and the carpet they'll walk across, extra cost of air conditioning to cool house from rise in temperature caused by guest (in summer) or extra heating cost (in winter), depreciation of my CD player, waste of my precious lifetime minutes trying to demonstrate an effect which I am almost certain does not exist...

I figure about a million bucks. So this thing better work.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Metullus
Not that anybody cares, but I will be using Weird Al's "Dare to be Stupid" CD. Yeah, but what kind of bananas will you be using? You know that most bananas come from outside the US, and are therefore picked green. Do you want to run the risk of giving your CDs a raw, undeveloped sound?

And you need to be careful about using a banana that's past its peak, lest you run the risk of imparting a mushy, turgid sound to your CDs.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by trainman
*sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip* I cannot but activate a warning I conveyed in the very first page of that thread:

“The Trainman. I don’t like him. But my papa says we have to do what the Trainman says, or else he will leave us here forever and ever�.

24/08/2005
Andreas Makrides – aka Trainman
Athens, Greece Good! Thank you. Then I won't waste time adressing any of the nonsense statements in your long rant.

Hans