AUDIO TWEAKS AND THE DOUBLE BLIND TEST CULT

[trainman]

Dear friends in the skeptic community

Presenting the “intelligent chip�, James Randi, asked: “Just how abysmally stupid can audio crazies get?� One of them responded – a blind test was about to be agreed to, but the whole discussions led to a “fiasco�.

Now that all this raving seems to be diminished, let me please share with you some of my thoughts, concerning, not only this device, but the whole attitude of JREF and your community, towards audio tweaks – expecting from you, only to forgive my very poor English, as it is not my native language and I don’t use it frequently.

I am one of those “audio lunatics, nuts and crazies� that Mr. Randi derides – I have already successfully used two “intelligent chips�, but also, even more radical devices, like the ones that Peter and May Belt feature, receiving such alike comments by JREF.

It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million. I am sure also, that “Golden Sound� is not still ready to support me financially for the task, let alone that I will have to pass even harder tests in the American embassy in order to get a visa!

So – let me address to you, to talk you about…

THE CULT OF THE BLIND TEST

Every cult shares a portion of truth, and the most successful ones are those with the biggest portions. And friends, without underestimating the value of the ABX test, I am about to renounce it as the one and sublime way to verify the claims of an audio contriver.

1) First of all, I’d like to ask: What is the main purpose of a blind test? To investigate a “paranormal� phenomenon, test the “pseudo-scientific explanations� of the inventor of a device, or test the ability of the listener? If Wellfed, or me - Trainman - could pass the JREF examination, what would we prove? Would we prove that GSIC really enhances the audio quality of a compact disc, or that we have “paranormal� abilities? And why couldn’t someone claim, that nothing of the sort is proven, “but the protocol was just not framed properly?�

The best answer that one could give would be that I proved my ability to earn 1 million dollars. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

2) The second question I like to add is why Mr Randi’s, Kramer’s and Hans’s sceptic nature does not bother to test the abilities of the music reviewers and commentators. Let me be, a bit more specific:

I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. The one is a recording of the third part of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata� with the legendary Ignaz Friedman on the piano, recorded on September 1926. The other recording is the same piece, from the same pianist, recorded two years later – at 1928 - same pianist, same piece, same frenzy performance, with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.

Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?

If you could really succeed in this task, would that be a “paranormal� phenomenon or not Mr Kramer? And could then the various “mediums�, “psychics� and the rest, rejoice that the sceptics are beaten at last?

Now: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. Some of them could even tell you and compare by thought only, the difference between Rubinstein’s and Horowitz’s Chopin, the differences in the performances of the same artist during the years, the various product values and qualities of the recordings. For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.

These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.

I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?

Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends? Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?

3) Let’s return to the blind test again. As I said before, you cannot underestimate its value when you are a researcher, a scientist in the field of psychoacoustics and even more, if you happen to be a magician, a person qualified to deceive the sight of the audience in a show. Things cannot be so positive though, in the world of audio – at least since we recognize some difference, between the terms of “sound� and “music�.

Let me give you some examples:

Every expert will tell you that the hearing ability of the human being starts to decrease after the 18th year. Very few people human ears have the ability to discern sounds close to 20 kHz after their adolescence. Most of us adults, hear up to 16000-17000 Hz.

How come then, the whole planet to trust an aged violinist to fulfil their needs of musical pleasure? Why not to prefer a young and cheerful artist that would have his listening abilities intact? Is it because the audience is not able to hear the difference too? And what about the makers of the instruments? When did Guarnieri or Sax produce their best instruments – at their teens, or fifties?

Most of us, audiophiles, when younger, were pretty satisfied when listening to our music through cheap stereo junk walkmans, like our younger brothers and sons that listen now through their ipods and mp3s. Would you claim that they know better, and their 50$ machines sound better than the serious high fidelity stuff of their fathers? What is for sure though, is that they are happier than us!...

When I see published ABX tests such like the ones (www.pcavtech.com) that Mr Randi praised in one of his commentaries, I aim to find data that is usually missing or is difficult to describe: Age, experience in listening, familiarity with the hi-fi system and the recordings, interest in the music playing.

And last – are you, sceptics, sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way?

TOWARDS MY OWN “PROTOCOL�

What is the biggest enemy of the double blind experiment? The sales of the products, of course!

You can easily say that a person is somehow deceived, but you have to answer, how could be a more massive sample of satisfied customers deceived, and believe that their 16$ or 200 pounds “swindles�, improve the sound of their cd’s (or the perception of it). The usual answer of yours is that these people are temporally or constantly in a state of self illusion, or that they are ready to believe everything they are told to.

Well, I cannot argue that there is always such a category – “a sucker is born every minute� etc. In reality though, things are more complicated.

- There are those who believe everything and are ready to pay (how many of them you’ve really met?)
- There are the converts – those that did not believe but “saw the light� - myself included.
- There are the ones that just do not care.
- There are the ones that did not believe, agreed that the “tweaks� work, but didn’t care afterwards – didn’t care to explain the phenomenon (some of my fellow-students for instance).
- There are people that admit before listening, “not able to judge� but “if you say so, I believe you, because you are experienced and you know better�.
- There are people that listen hard, but they cannot discern any difference.
- There are people that they feel very comfortable to refuse the possibility of sound altering, since James Randi has done it first and nobody challenged him through accepting to participate to a double blind test.
- There are those that refuse to accept the eventuality of the extreme “tweaking�, since the principle that lies beyond it is unscientific.
- There are the ones that believe that the whole thing is “********�.

There will always be people that are extremely satisfied listening music through a cheap Chinese portable and the ones that would not rest even with the most expensive frontline system. There will always be the audio-ignorant and the audio-neurotic. Which kind of listener should I choose to demonstrate the efficiency of a product?

For me, a blind test was not needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music. I have studied music from my early childhood and, although I didn’t become a performer, I grew up to be a dedicated listener. Was I born a person ready to be deceived by swindlers at my forties, that the cd’s perform better under their shadow cases? Well – who knows?

I didn’t manage to come to the States for the million that could save my life (and help me buy many more lp’s and cd’s and a much better system for sure) but I managed to create an imaginary “protocol� just for you!

I choose someone among you, which have the same love of music and can appreciate mine. A person that has at least experienced in the past, the feeling of longing to find a record that is not available at his local shop, or even in his country – that has gathered with difficulty money and has waited patiently for months for a record to come from abroad.

If possible, I would choose for start a person that appreciates classical music and can discern a good pianist from a mediocre one. I would then invite him in my little salon for a cup of tea or coffee.

I wouldn’t choose a good recording, as Golden Sound and Machina Dynamica suggest for the experiment. I would choose an old one, one of those ADD’s, maybe one of those ageing recordings that border on paranormal – for what but “paranormal� is for a music lover, to be able to listen to the gramophone recordings of the old Masters!

It is with these recordings of the early 20’s and 30’s that the audio engineers struggle. They have to battle against millions of clicks and pops and crackles, they have to manage the lack of bass, the lack of air, they got to balance the opposites - they have to restore a wreck from the bottom of the sea.

I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?�

It is for sure an unorthodox approach and a weird protocol without any prize. But you are always welcome.

Trainman

[Psiload]

Originally posted by trainman
***snip***It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million. I am sure also, that “Golden Sound� is not still ready to support me financially for the task, let alone that I will have to pass even harder tests in the American embassy in order to get a visa! ***snip***

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.

[Kiless]

Geia sou. Xarika gia tin gnorimia

Nice to meet you. I'm new here myself.

Before you start using language like 'cult' to describe double-blind testing and then admit that you don't even know what it means, I'd suggest researching it. It's just common sense. I'm certain you value common sense, the same way you value having your views respected. By the way you have written this post, it seems that you have a few issues with skeptics? So, perhaps some things should be clarified in order to ensure that you understand their views and maybe come to less of an emotive approach to whatever Mr Randi has said.

First -

Originally posted by trainman
It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million. I am sure also, that “Golden Sound� is not still ready to support me financially for the task, let alone that I will have to pass even harder tests in the American embassy in order to get a visa!

I'd suggest looking at the criteria for JREF, for a start.

If you go to the Challenge section of this forum, you can see a few examples where Kramer has demonstrated that there is no need to go to the USA. In fact, he was rather taken aback, it appears, when someone turned up at the JREF offices doorstep!

You contact JREF by making an application in the correct manner, with protocol et al (there's a nice FAQ about that too),

Then.

THEY organise a skeptic representative near you - have you tried checking out who is in your nearest city, for example? - possibly some scientific professionals with accreditation and experience in examining scientific claims.... and you'll be put to the minimal put-out of travelling! :) In fact, have a read of some of the claims that were put to the test, where they even made several bookings and tried to accomodate the applicants as best as they could, even at one point booking a hall, I believe and changing the date to best suit the applicant.

And, as I've seen on these boards, know that you'll be lauded as a good example of a keen applicant who seeks to further knowledge (and sure, there may be some who say otherwise but eh, you took on the challenge and kudos for that, nonetheless. ) :)



Originally posted by trainman

So – let me address to you, to talk you about…

THE CULT OF THE BLIND TEST



No - let me address YOU - I'd suggest not using that term, 'cult' again. Find out what it means, first. Then start seeing that you are in fact, wrong. Sorry - very wrong. :)

Here's some links:
http://skepdic.com/control.html
http://www.plasticsurgerydr.com/rpseudo.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/scivsalt.html

Enjoy. :)

Originally posted by trainman
Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize? ......



Sounds interesting....

Write it up - apply. :) You seem to have done some groundwork already. I'd support you trying as you certainly seem passionate.

But first - I'd find out what double-blind testing meant before you criticise it. Otherwise, it might all be a waste. And I'm certain from your behavior that you don't want this to be wasted and ignored.

Show me. Kali tihi! :)



Edited for bad cut and paste, excuse me.

[chillzero]

Well said, Auden.

[TjW]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear friends in the skeptic community

Presenting the “intelligent chip�, James Randi, asked: “Just how abysmally stupid can audio crazies get?� One of them responded – a blind test was about to be agreed to, but the whole discussions led to a “fiasco�.

Well, at least we did get an answer for Mr. Randi's question:
Pretty darn stupid.

Originally posted by trainman

(snip)
1) First of all, I’d like to ask: What is the main purpose of a blind test? To investigate a “paranormal� phenomenon, test the “pseudo-scientific explanations� of the inventor of a device, or test the ability of the listener? If Wellfed, or me - Trainman - could pass the JREF examination, what would we prove? Would we prove that GSIC really enhances the audio quality of a compact disc, or that we have “paranormal� abilities? And why couldn’t someone claim, that nothing of the sort is proven, “but the protocol was just not framed properly?�
The best answer that one could give would be that I proved my ability to earn 1 million dollars. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

The primary purpose of double blinding a test is to make sure you're not fooling yourself. The only people who could object to this are people who don't want to know if they're fooling themselves.
If someone were to pass the JREF challenge, then what would have been proved, or ruled out, would be dependent on the exact details of the test. And certainly someone could claim the protocol was not framed properly. I mean, if someone can claim that quantum dots can affect a property of a Compact Disc that doesn't even exist, (I refer to the waveform reconstruction timing, which is not stored on the disc), then certainly someone could claim that any particular test is not framed properly.
But, regardless of any such claim, the person who passed the JREF challenge would be one million dollars richer.

Originally posted by trainman
2) The second question I like to add is why Mr Randi’s, Kramer’s and Hans’s sceptic nature does not bother to test the abilities of the music reviewers and commentators. Let me be, a bit more specific:

I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. The one is a recording of the third part of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata� with the legendary Ignaz Friedman on the piano, recorded on September 1926. The other recording is the same piece, from the same pianist, recorded two years later – at 1928 - same pianist, same piece, same frenzy performance, with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.

Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?

If you could really succeed in this task, would that be a “paranormal� phenomenon or not Mr Kramer? And could then the various “mediums�, “psychics� and the rest, rejoice that the sceptics are beaten at last?

Now: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. Some of them could even tell you and compare by thought only, the difference between Rubinstein’s and Horowitz’s Chopin, the differences in the performances of the same artist during the years, the various product values and qualities of the recordings. For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.

These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.

I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?

Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends? Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?

No, hearing a difference where there is a real difference -- even a subtle one -- is not a paranormal claim. Would I undertake to differentiate the two recordings, given the time to become familiar with them, for a million dollars? In a heartbeat. Got the money, in bonds, designated for such a purpose?

Originally posted by trainman
3) Let’s return to the blind test again. As I said before, you cannot underestimate its value when you are a researcher, a scientist in the field of psychoacoustics and even more, if you happen to be a magician, a person qualified to deceive the sight of the audience in a show. Things cannot be so positive though, in the world of audio – at least since we recognize some difference, between the terms of “sound� and “music�.
(snip)
And last – are you, sceptics, sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way?
Actually, I doubt that five different people interpret the same music in the same way. But that isn't the subject under discussion.

Originally posted by trainman
TOWARDS MY OWN “PROTOCOL�

What is the biggest enemy of the double blind experiment? The sales of the products, of course!

You can easily say that a person is somehow deceived, but you have to answer, how could be a more massive sample of satisfied customers deceived, and believe that their 16$ or 200 pounds “swindles�, improve the sound of their cd’s (or the perception of it). The usual answer of yours is that these people are temporally or constantly in a state of self illusion, or that they are ready to believe everything they are told to.

Well, I cannot argue that there is always such a category – “a sucker is born every minute� etc. In reality though, things are more complicated.
(snip)

For me, a blind test was not needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music. I have studied music from my early childhood and, although I didn’t become a performer, I grew up to be a dedicated listener. Was I born a person ready to be deceived by swindlers at my forties, that the cd’s perform better under their shadow cases? Well – who knows?

Would a double-blinded test make the effect go away?
Above, you acknowledge a difference here between sound and music.
I contend that the sound of the CD is not affected by the GSIC. I fully believe your perception of the music is affected by your knowledge that the CD was treated, but I don't consider that to be a physical effect on the sound.

Originally posted by trainman
I didn’t manage to come to the States for the million that could save my life (and help me buy many more lp’s and cd’s and a much better system for sure) but I managed to create an imaginary “protocol� just for you!
(snip)
I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?�

It is for sure an unorthodox approach and a weird protocol without any prize. But you are always welcome.

Trainman
As other posters have pointed out, you needn't travel to the United States. Wellfed happened to be in the U.S., and was originally willing to travel to Florida. This was not considered necessary by JREF.

Your protocol is NOT particularly unorthodox. It's just not very good. Consider this small change: We listen to the music once, then I flip a coin, and call the result to someone else, who puts something (neither of us knows what) on the CD. Then we listen to the music again. Is it improved?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. The one is a recording of the third part of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata� with the legendary Ignaz Friedman on the piano, recorded on September 1926. The other recording is the same piece, from the same pianist, recorded two years later – at 1928 - same pianist, same piece, same frenzy performance, with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.

Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?I have an accurate stopwatch. If the two recordings differ in length by a few seconds, I could easily distinguish between them simply by timing them. I would not have to listen to the music at all carefully.Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. [ ... ] I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?

Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends? Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?If some music reviewer says he can discriminate various recordings, but in fact he can't do so unless he already knows which recording is which, then he's fooling himself too. Whether anyone decides to challenge him or not, or what their reasons are for that decision, seems to be rather beside the point.I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?�Of what do you hope to convince us with this test?

We already agree that people (including ourselves) might think they hear a difference between a plain CD and a CD that has been treated with the Intelligent Chip. We just don't agree that there really is a difference.

If there really is a difference and if someone truly can hear it, can you think of any reason why that person would not be able to distinguish reliably between a treated CD and untreated CD unless he already knew which one was which?

[Ririon]

Originally posted by trainman
It is for sure an unorthodox approach and a weird protocol without any prize. But you are always welcome.
Darn! I was hoping for a self-financed vacation to Greece...

And Trainman, in case you didn't know: Anyone can hear the difference with your "protocol". And even if they don't, they can still claim they did.

That is true even if you use the SD-RAM card from your digital camera instead of an actual authentic "intelligent chip"... (That's an in-joke among skeptics who have seen both and the plastic case they come in.) :)

Let me just give you some advice: Read, learn and save A LOT of money that you can instead invest in music. If you're still not convinced, win a million dollars. It's a win-win situation for you!

[jj]

I will break my silence to point out that the FACTS of human perception are known well enough that it is UNDERSTOOD that only a Double Blind test or competent cognate of such a thing has any meaning at all in any scientific, repeatable audio comparison that goes much beyond the question of 'is there any audio at all or not'. The same sort of tests are even sometimes required to answer that question at threshold levels.

This is not speculation, it is not under any serious debate in any way, shape, or form whatsover, and it is completely and as close to universally accepted as any idea ever was in the real, scientific, professional areas where such work is routinely done. There is no challenge presently mounted that would suggest that there is any serious claim or problem with proper double-blind testing, and there has been no such challenge with any serious import in many years, either.

While the mechanisms of inadvertant self-deception are not understand, and are part of the CNS, the fact that inadvertant self-deception is universal among listeners (expert or not) tested in a scientifically meaningful way explains entirely why some "tweaks" work. No further discussion should be necessary, especially for phantsmagorical codswallop that can not withstand even a simple DBT protocol.

Statements like "Double-Blind Test Cult" are false, unduely dismissive, insulting, and constitute an unthinking and wholeheartedly ignorant attack on the the people who actually know the subject. Such statements are shameful and counterproductive to actual understanding, and only cause the informed individual to further reject the patent nonsense put forth by some audiophiles and audio reviewers.

Certainly there may be people who promote various kinds of Double-Blind Tests who do not run the best, most sensitive, or fairest tests. Using such examples to argue against double-blind testing employs the same logic as the person, who on spotting the wheel-less, motorless old car up on blocks in the junkyard, concludes "cars don't work".

The title of this thread is scurrilous, insulting, and the person making it should apologize profusely to the entire scientific community and hang his or her head in shame.

[roger]

Originally posted by trainman

Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?

That is absolutely irrelevant to the claim.

The claim is that their is an audible difference after using the GSIC. Discussing 2 CDs with barely or no audible difference has no bearing on the claim, or the value of DBT.

If you can hear a difference, you will pass the DBT. If you can't, you won't.

Don't try to convince us that the company is selling a product that people willingly buy even though they don't feel they can hear an audible difference.

So, if you can hear a difference, put up. Apply, or be exposed as yet another person who doesn't really believe their claims. We will not be confused by smoke screens.

[jmercer]

Gentlemen, please...

He's a hit & run troll, or simply a troll. He doesn't know - or care - what a double-blind test is for, etc. He just wants to stir things up. :)

[Ririon]

Yep. One long provocative post. No follow-up. Hit-and-run troll.

[Paulhoff]

Well, a friend of mine once said, and I am sure it is not his idea.

“Smart people can be ignorant, all people are all ignorant about some (or a lot) of things, but smart people can be taught. Stupid people on the other hand will remain stupid no matter how much you try, so the best thing to do is just run away from them as fast as you can.�

Paul

:) :) :)

[trainman]

PSILOAD: I am not going to dream for any excuse but I will welcome any “qualified representative� to be tested under my own “protocol� (but running short of money, you may hear about me again!)

Since you like the movies though, (isn’t it the “clockwork orange� you chose?) you will recognise my warning: “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 for ever and ever�!

AUDEN: “Geia sou kai se sena file moy!� and thanks for your proposals. I’d like to write down a few words about the "cult" though: I didn’t want of course to offend anyone. To provoke, well, maybe. But hey, do you think that I am an “abysmally stupid� person?

Find a proper word, for people that on any argument have a ready made answer (“Did you pass a double blind test?�) and I am ready to repulse about the “cult� since you were offended so much.

TJW: mean, if someone can claim that quantum dots can affect a property of a Compact Disc that doesn't even exist, (I refer to the waveform reconstruction timing, which is not stored on the disc), then certainly someone could claim that any particular test is not framed properly.

Have you considered the possibility, the inventor of the "quantum dots",(or something of sort) to try to find an explanation for a phenomenon AFTER he experienced it? I am certainly not bounded from the "white papers" of the products. In some cases (cables for instance) they should be able to say that "it works but we do not know how". By the way, why the waveform reconstruction timing is not stored on the disc? What about the jitter of the recording equipment?

Would I undertake to differentiate the two recordings, given the time to become familiar with them, for a million dollars? In a heartbeat. Got the money, in bonds, designated for such a purpose?

No, TjW, I do not have the money. Are you interested though? If you are, the two Naxos cd's cost a few dollars more than my "16$ swindle". This was not my point, of course - and you know it. My point is, why should you so easily regard a foil sticked over a cd a "fraud", without even thinking of testing its effect yourself, but you accept so easily the abbility of a person to distinguish certain very subtle elements between two recordings, without challenging him to pass a double blind test.

Your protocol is NOT particularly unorthodox. It's just not very good. Consider this small change: We listen to the music once, then I flip a coin, and call the result to someone else, who puts something (neither of us knows what) on the CD. Then we listen to the music again. Is it improved?

No it is not improved TjW! What makes you believe that I haven't done this test? I agree though, that to persuade you, I shall be ready to play with your own terms.

69DODGE:
have an accurate stopwatch. If the two recordings differ in length by a few seconds, I could easily distinguish between them simply by timing them. I would not have to listen to the music at all carefully.

Well, what can I say? Clever answer!

If there really is a difference and if someone truly can hear it, can you think of any reason why that person would not be able to distinguish reliably between a treated CD and untreated CD unless he already knew which one was which?

I realy don't get the question, it is a bit confusing - for, if I already know which one is which, I would be able to distinguish reliably. Look for a more general answer below.


RIRION:

Trainman, in case you didn't know: Anyone can hear the difference with your "protocol". And even if they don't, they can still claim they did. That is true even if you use the SD-RAM card from your digital camera instead of an actual authentic "intelligent chip"... (That's an in-joke among skeptics who have seen both and the plastic case they come in.)

No, Ririon. Many people would be very comfortable to continue listening, the noise would not trouble them at all. That's why, in my "protocol", the subject is chosen.

When I was a youngster, I was ordered by my father to "shut down this rubbish" - it was Deep Purple's "Live in London"! Should I choose him for a test with this same cd?

JJ:

The title of this thread is scurrilous, insulting, and the person making it should apologize profusely to the entire scientific community and hang his or her head in shame.

I'm certainly not planning to hang my head in shame and I am very happy I can express my view without the fear of hanging!

ROGER:

Don't try to convince us that the company is selling a product that people willingly buy even though they don't feel they can hear an audible difference.

How could I try to convince you about that, Roger? The company is selling a product that people willingly buy BECAUSE they feel they can hear an audible difference and they DO hear it.

That is absolutely irrelevant to the claim. The claim is that their is an audible difference after using the GSIC. Discussing 2 CDs with barely or no audible difference has no bearing on the claim, or the value of DBT. If you can hear a difference, you will pass the DBT. If you can't, you won't.

Roger you have cut my argument in two, just to end up telling me "if you can hear a difference, you will pass the DBT. If you can't , you won't". I can be clever myself too, you know. I could tell you then, that if you cannot discern any difference between the two cd's, you are not qualified enough to be tested under my own "protocol"!


AND MY GENERAL COMMENTS

Friends

I have already written in the first place, that I do not underestimate the value of a DBT. That means, that, in order to have a final judgment over this matter, I would like to see someone being tested thus. But I underline, that for me, this is not a straitforward answer to the subject.

The DBT, is a powerful weapon in the hands of the ones that reject a claim IN ADVANCE. It is a political argument that downgrades the discussion to a challenge and - in the case of JREF - in a war to conquer or defend 1 million dollars.

Noone of you, for instance, asked me: "We do not want to pay for this rubbish, but if you believe that differences are audible, we would very happily accept a free offer of yourself, or sending to us two cd-r's, one treated and one not, or two songs via the net to judge ourselves". There is only one general answer: "Dare, if you are a man! If not, you are a yellow!"

I am willing to accept the offence from the owner of the 1 million dollars - he, at least, has to lose something, that in our modern world costs more than my reputation!

Waiting for more answers on the matter, I will write few words about a question that may have been asked by 69dodge or maybe not. The question is: "What about those that listen and do not find any differences?"

This is possibly the most serious argument:

What can I answer? I have to acknowledge their experience at least as equal to mine!

Should I find a "reasonable" explanation I could claim that:

- They didn't take the time to judge. Their listening was quick, and the "tweaks" (like the machines themselves) need always some time to "install".

- Their system was not analytical enough. Some systems are more "forgiving" of the faults of the recordings than other systems and it is obvious that they do not overemphasise the more subtle elements. In the hi-fi circles, we call them "musical" systems in contrary with the "analytical" or "monitoresque" ones.

- Some people have the benefit of listening to music only, and totaly neglecting the reproducing elements - something very common if you really like the music played! In this category you may find many musicians, listening through very chip and awfuly sounding equipment. This may seem contradictory but it is not - for behind the music, they mentaly "see" a stave.

Look it in the other way: Someone drives a car and takes a trip to the woods. He is totaly absorbed by the wonderful view and is not interested at all, whether his engine is noisy, the shock absorbers hard, or the helm mechanical. Another driver, may still enjoy the trip, but being a driver-hobbyist himself, would be very annoyed with a conventional car.

The above arguments are the "reasonal-like" ones, and could be used as weapons on a dispute. Just because are such though, I have to admit that for me, are not enough. If someone cannot hear something while I do, there must be some reason I DON'T KNOW. So, in the end I may be really an IGNORANT person mr JJ!

[MRC_Hans]

Since my humble name is, for some reason, singled out:

Originally posted by trainman
Dear friends in the skeptic community

Hi!

Presenting the “intelligent chip�, James Randi, asked: “Just how abysmally stupid can audio crazies get?�

I agree. One of James Randi's greatest weaknesses is his poor manners. I also agree with his statement, I would just have expressed it in more diplomatic terms, myself.

One of them responded – a blind test was about to be agreed to, but the whole discussions led to a “fiasco�.

No, it was not about to be agreed to. Obviously, realizing objectivity would be required, Wellfed wisely, but rather unelegantly backed out.

*snip*

I am one of those “audio lunatics, nuts and crazies� that Mr. Randi derides – I have already successfully used two “intelligent chips�, but also, even more radical devices, like the ones that Peter and May Belt feature, receiving such alike comments by JREF.

I will only comment about the GSIC, not knowing the other devices, but I would comment that they could hardly be more radical.

It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million.

As somebody already mentioned, going tto the USA would not be required.

I am sure also, that “Golden Sound� is not still ready to support me financially for the task,

"Golden Sound?" Is that the manufacturer? Would not support you for bringing them priceless publicity? The only POSSIBLE reason they would refuse to do so (except if they were wying for the prize themsemes) is that they know quite well that you can't win.

1) First of all, I’d like to ask: What is the main purpose of a blind test?

To reach an objective result.

To investigate a “paranormal� phenomenon, test the “pseudo-scientific explanations� of the inventor of a device, or test the ability of the listener?

It doesn't matter, in this case. The challenge is to distinguish between treated or non-treated disks. You can listen to them, sniff them, taste them, dowse them, it won't matter.

If Wellfed, or me - Trainman - could pass the JREF examination, what would we prove? Would we prove that GSIC really enhances the audio quality of a compact disc, or that we have “paranormal� abilities?

Since the only difference between between the disk would be the GSIC treatment, you would have shown that that treatment made a difference.

And why couldn’t someone claim, that nothing of the sort is proven, “but the protocol was just not framed properly?�

They could. The Randi Challenge is not supposed to convey scientific vindication. You would need to publish test reports in peer-reviewed scientific journals and have your experiment verified by others for that. But winning the Randi million would certainly give you a good start.

The best answer that one could give would be that I proved my ability to earn 1 million dollars. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

You could say that. It is academic, however, if you can't actually DO it. [/i]

2) The second question I like to add is why Mr Randi’s, Kramer’s and Hans’s sceptic nature does not bother to test the abilities of the music reviewers and commentators. Let me be, a bit more specific:

[b]That is something quite different. They do not claim to detect something objective. What I think of a musical performance is my personal and subjective perception.

I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. *snip* with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.

Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not.

Of course not, he wouldn't even try. There is bound to be many other differences than the lenght. No musical artist will play the same piece in exactly the same way twice. That is why we go to concerts, otherwise we might as well listen to a recording.

Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?

Yes. Even without using a stop-watch.

If you could really succeed in this task, would that be a “paranormal� phenomenon or not Mr Kramer?

No it would not. The recordings are different. Detecting an objective difference might be difficult, but nothing paranormal.

And could then the various “mediums�, “psychics� and the rest, rejoice that the sceptics are beaten at last?

No.

Now: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. *snip* For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.

Irrelevant.

These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.

Irrelevant.

I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?

I might, but why should I? They are either talkig about an objective difference or about their subjective perception.

Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends?

Because they do not claim to do anything paranormal.

Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?

If it is scientifically possible, it is not paranormal. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

How come then, the whole planet to trust an aged violinist to fulfil their needs of musical pleasure? Why not to prefer a young and cheerful artist that would have his listening abilities intact? Is it because the audience is not able to hear the difference too? And what about the makers of the instruments? When did Guarnieri or Sax produce their best instruments – at their teens, or fifties?

Are you saying that you think a musical performance is dependent on the musician's ability to hear extremely high tones?

Most of us, audiophiles, when younger, were pretty satisfied when listening to our music through cheap stereo junk walkmans, like our younger brothers and sons that listen now through their ipods and mp3s. Would you claim that they know better, and their 50$ machines sound better than the serious high fidelity stuff of their fathers? What is for sure though, is that they are happier than us!...

Strawman. Nobody here claimed that serious hi fi equipment does not outperform "cheap stereo junk". That is not what the discussion is about at all.

And last – are you, sceptics, sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way?

No. And?

TOWARDS MY OWN “PROTOCOL�

What is the biggest enemy of the double blind experiment? The sales of the products, of course!

Why?

You can easily say that a person is somehow deceived, but you have to answer, how could be a more massive sample of satisfied customers deceived, and believe that their 16$ or 200 pounds “swindles�, improve the sound of their cd’s (or the perception of it). The usual answer of yours is that these people are temporally or constantly in a state of self illusion, or that they are ready to believe everything they are told to.

Yes, that about sums it up.

*snip*

There are people that they feel very comfortable to refuse the possibility of sound altering, since James Randi has done it first and nobody challenged him through accepting to participate to a double blind test.

I don't know about that, but I can tell you why I rejected the GSIC: It completely defies the laws of physics on several levels. I already explained how in the wellfed thread, so you can go and read it there.

There will always be people that are extremely satisfied listening music through a cheap Chinese portable and the ones that would not rest even with the most expensive frontline system. There will always be the audio-ignorant and the audio-neurotic. Which kind of listener should I choose to demonstrate the efficiency of a product?

I don't care. As long as you DO demonstrate the efficiency.

For me, a blind test was not needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music.

Wrong wording. It should be: "For me, a non-blinded test was needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music." ... You see, in a blinded test, you would not have been able to hear the difference. (I'm still talking about the GSIC)

*snip*
but I managed to create an imaginary “protocol� just for you!

Very appropriated termed "protocol". A real protocol it is not.

*snip* Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?�

Only, it wouldn't work. Or, if you could make it work, you still have time to win a million.



Trainman, it all boils down to this: If the GSIC makes a difference for a CD, it is objectively audible or measurable. If you need to know which CD is treated to tell the difference, you are deluding yourself.

And since there is no way the laws of physics could allow a chip to remotely change the bit pattern etched in metal inside the disk it would have to use magic. Which is the reason it is eligible for the JREF Challenge.

All else is evasions.

Hans

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
I realy don't get the question, it is a bit confusing - for, if I already know which one is which, I would be able to distinguish reliably.Yes, that is exactly my point: of course if you already know which one is which, you'll be able correctly to say which one is which. So I do not understand why some people object to blind tests. All a blind test is, is a test where the person doesn't already know which one is which; rather, in a blind test, he must correctly say which one is which based solely on listening to them. If the only time he can tell them apart is when he already knows which one is which, it's hard to argue that he really does hear a difference between them. A much more likely explanation is this: there is no audible difference, but he thinks he hears a difference because he expects to hear a difference.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Yes, that is exactly my point: of course if you already know which one is which, you'll be able correctly to say which one is which. So I do not understand why some people object to blind tests. All a blind test is, is a test where the person doesn't already know which one is which; rather, in a blind test, he must correctly say which one is which based solely on listening to them. If the only time he can tell them apart is when he already knows which one is which, it's hard to argue that he really does hear a difference between them. A much more likely explanation is this: there is no audible difference, but he thinks he hears a difference because he expects to hear a difference

And significantly more than one double-blind trial is required. A good minimum, 10 or 12.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by alfaniner
And significantly more than one double-blind trial is required. A good minimum, 10 or 12.

For any high degree of scientific certainty, yes. Personally I would be impressed with one pass if anyone would test this thing double blind and state with confidence which CD had been treated. Two or three sucessful tests in a row would have me doubting known physics.

[alfaniner]

No, Wellfed did a single test and thought he guessed correctly. A single test is not enough to convince the sitter that he may be wrong.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Hitch
For any high degree of scientific certainty, yes. Personally I would be impressed with one pass if anyone would test this thing double blind and state with confidence which CD had been treated. Two or three sucessful tests in a row would have me doubting known physics.

Really? Would you be convinced if that I were psychic if I could call two or three coin flips in a row?

[LTC8K6]

Trainman, why don't artists and CD sellers/manufacturers use intelligent chips to improve the sound of their CD's to increase sales?

Would you pay a little more for a CD that you like that has already been given the GSIC treatment?

What is your opinion of the sale of "pre-treated" blank recordable CD's?

[Ashles]

Goodness me. What a lot of words the OP uses to try and ask that the CDs not be tested in the best way possible.

All the claims, all the distractions, all the attempts to shift the burden of proof...

None of them actual divert from the basic question - does the thing work?

The best method for finding out is blind testing.
If the reasons for that aren't astonishingly obvious to someone then they really aren't in a position to suggest test designs that anyone would take seriously.

Especially when they think that a performance that could be achieved at by chance at odds of 1/8 would have them "doubting known physics".

You'd think the proponents of these 'scientific devices' would be happy to have them tested scientifically, but, no, we have to invent elaborate unscientific and subjective testing for no apparent reason.


Plus anyone who refuses to take the tests for reasons that show that they haven't even skimmed the actual Challenge rules, has no real intention of applying.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by trainman
My point is, why should you so easily regard a foil sticked over a cd a "fraud", without even thinking of testing its effect yourself, but you accept so easily the abbility of a person to distinguish certain very subtle elements between two recordings, without challenging him to pass a double blind test.


Because the former is a physical impossibility. In order to accept that sort of claim, we would need to believe:

1) That everything known by electronic and audio engineers about how a CD player works is wrong. This includes the knowledge of those who design and manufacture these devices.

2) That the individual(s) who discovered this fact, and rewrote the laws of physics and logic, have used their monumental discovery only to create a product whose sole purpose is to produce a barely audible improvement in CD audio.

That is a short explanation of why we demand reliable scientific evidence (i.e. double-blind studies) up-front.

[Ducky]

The above arguments are the "reasonal-like" ones, and could be used as weapons on a dispute. Just because are such though, I have to admit that for me, are not enough. If someone cannot hear something while I do, there must be some reason I DON'T KNOW. So, in the end I may be really an IGNORANT person mr JJ!



I am a recording engineer and this device is nothing more than laughable, audiophile snake oil no better than the dot stickers sold to "tune" your speakers. Forgive my appeal to authority here, but some things are so laughably wrong you cannot in good conscience even argue about it.

Here's the scientific corollary: Digital recording is done by magic faeries and not computers.

Laughing?

So am I.

I think you are right about one thing, though.

You most certainly are ignorant.

Not only would you be ignorant of physics, recording technologies, playback technologies, but also of the idea that you could delude yourself to think this device works.

Make the application for the million dollar prize if you think it works. YOU are the one making a claim here. YOU prove us wrong.

My psychic abilities say you won't even bother to apply, which, to me, is just fine. Poor Kramer is busy with enough nonsense.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Really? Would you be convinced if that I were psychic if I could call two or three coin flips in a row?
If you were calling the coin flips with absolute confidence, and were consistently correct, I would strongly suspect you had some means of knowing the outcome. Depending on the controls in place, I might be willing to accept the possibility of something paranormal until someone could explain how it was happening. Would I award any amount of money for the claim without rigorous testing, or enough tests to be beyond any reasonable occurance of chance? No way!

What I was talking about is someone pointing to a disc and saying with no hesitation, "Treated" or "Untreated" and if asked if they're sure, state absolutetely with 100% confidence. If I'm flipping a coin and you're calling the results, you're going to have to be one hell of an actor to seem totally confident in your choices.

No one who seems to BELIEVE in the GSIC seems willing to step forward because, deep in their hearts, they know they will look foolish. Lost Angeles is willing to take the test and be plesantly surprised (to the tune of $1 million) if she can hear a difference. If the results are as everyone expects, she'll enjoy the pizza.

[sf108]

Quote.

Trainman: yadda yadda yadda

End quote.

Ok...when's the application?

[trainman]

Dear friends

Glad to see the ball keep rolling and see the various members of the Double Blind Test Order reply. The other side of the coin though, is that the arguments are many, and, aiming to answer to all of them, the more specific of my answers get lost in quantity. So, please excuse my very lengthy replies!

FOWLSOUND:

I am a recording engineer and this device is nothing more than laughable, audiophile snake oil no better than the dot stickers sold to "tune" your speakers. Forgive my appeal to authority here, but some things are so laughably wrong you cannot in good conscience even argue about it.

No need to apologise for your appeal to authority. After all, it is your profession. As for the next:

You most certainly are ignorant. Not only would you be ignorant of physics, recording technologies, playback technologies, but also of the idea that you could delude yourself to think this device works.

I should remind you mister, the claim of your bosses about cd's, for "perfect sound forever". I suppose also that you feel perfectly well listening early 80's digital recordings, believe that "bits are bits", cables do not make a difference and loudspeaker stands serve only to keep short loudspeakers to the ear-height position.
You may keep insulting me this way, but do not suppose that I don't keep some aces under my sleeve.

The ending of your comment, is also very interesting:

Make the application for the million dollar prize if you think it works. YOU are the one making a claim here. YOU prove us wrong

No, mister. The one that made the claim first was mr. Randi, and he is not a recording engineer.


FLATWORM: I realy like your manners and, if you read carefuly my second "volume" (!) you'll see that on some points I do agree with you. Well, actually, there is an explanatory note about how GSIC works (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm) - I don't understand a thing and, as I said before, I don't feel obliged to defend it or refuse it.

Let me tell you another thing though: On summer 1999, the british audio magazine "Hi-Fi News" presented a mega cable-review, submitting 15 different types of loudspeaker cables to 17 different scientifical tests, as well as subjective listening tests. This project was presented in three different issues (June, July and August). The conclusion? Many of the claims of the manufacturers proved to be false, the DNM cable that had the worst record on the test, was one of the most amiable subjectively, and there was an unanimity that "there is much more to learn on the subject".

What I mean to say? Of course cable manufacturing is a more serious-like occupation than the audio tweaks, but it seems that is more empirical ("by the ear") than scientificaly well-founded.

HITCH:

No one who seems to BELIEVE in the GSIC seems willing to step forward because, deep in their hearts, they know they will look foolish.

I agree whole-heartedly with you HITCH. And I want you, to see the other side of the coin: It is much easier to refuse what the 99,9% would do, than stand forth and risk. I, personaly, had a very ugly experience: I was a conrtibutor to a cultural magazine in my country and had a quite friendly relation to its editor. Once, I send him an e-mail informing him about "the weird world of Peter Belt's audio tweaks", and presenting it as a "chilli alternative world view for summer" and nothing more. The outcome? Our connection was severed for ever.

Fortunately, my collaboration was on a voluntary basis and not a professional one.

Shall I continue on the subject?


LTC8K6


Trainman, why don't artists and CD sellers/manufacturers use intelligent chips to improve the sound of their CD's to increase sales?

Because either they don't believe in this stuff, they don't care or trust their own engineers. Are you sure though, that manufacturers really care about sound quality? How many harsh or bland recordings haven't you listened to?

Would you pay a little more for a CD that you like that has already been given the GSIC treatment?

Actualy, it is more fun doing it myself. There are recordings out there, that are more expensive because they use the latest conversion modes, and noone doubted the efficiency of the process - noone called the audio engineers to prove the difference in a double blind test.

But the more significant thing LTC8K6, is included in my own "protocol": If you read it carefuly, you will see that I state that actualy the sound on certain recordings could be WORSE than the original. And that at least, 69DODGE, proves to me that I am not fooled by my expectations!

What is your opinion of the sale of "pre-treated" blank recordable CD's?

I dislike the idea. Blank discs are UGLY, let alone that you have to pass all the way of transferring the data from the one cd to the other!

ASHLES

Goodness me. What a lot of words the OP uses to try and ask that the CDs not be tested in the best way possible. All the claims, all the distractions, all the attempts to shift the burden of proof... None of them actual divert from the basic question - does the thing work?

Your basic question ASHLES is not "whether the thing works" - it is "whether Trainman that claims it works has passed the DBT". This is your ONLY worry on the subject I am afraid.

MRC Hans

If you don't give me the priviledge of long answers, we will get lost in hundreds of pages! I am one towards 24 and you aim to reply to my every single clause? Good heavens!

Now, seriously:

Since the only difference between between the disk would be the GSIC treatment, you would have shown that that treatment made a difference.

No Hans. We have two different discs - not one. If I was claiming that I have paranormal abbilities and I can guess between two "normal" cd's, which one is which, the test would be the same with only the exception of putting the GSIC

[trainman]

...with only the excpetion of putting the GSIC over the platter for two seconds.

If I could prove to be right, someone could still claim that the chip does not work, but I have "paranormal abbilities".

On my question "are you sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way? you reply: "No. And?"

If "no" Hans, then, why? Could you give me an answer on this?

Are you saying that you think a musical performance is dependent on the musician's ability to hear extremely high tones?

Well, what do you think?

I myself, would at least think that there are maybe other ways to apprehend the coming vibrations except the ear. Is it "paranormal"?

That is something quite different. They do not claim to detect something objective. What I think of a musical performance is my personal and subjective perception.

This is the case Hans. You say that a musical performance is your personal and subjective perception and you agree that five different people could describe the sound of the same reproducing system differently.

All that is accepted by you - the only thing that is not accepted is that I may find that GSIC makes a difference: No - this one is not accepted, this one is "paranormal" and to prove its existence, we should exit the "personal and subjective" and enter the "impersonal and objective" through the only one Heaven's Gate - the DBT.

I think you get my point.

[Paulhoff]

A friend and me have a big disagreement on cables used to hook up equipment to the receiver. He believes in it and I don’t. Also the same thing with speaker wire comes up too. I try to tell him that if there is a change it is because they (the manufacture) have added capacitance, inductive, or resistance and or some combination of the three to the cable to change the sound. This is not want HI-FI is all about. True they may add sound that is more pleasing, like tubes and vinyl records, but it is added sound. :rolleyes:

Back to CD’s. Very few audiophiles have even the smallest idea of how the information is read from a CD, and all the processing that is done before and after the DAC. Most of them have the idea that it straight from the CD to the DAC and out from there to the receiver. They most likely never even opened up book on this subject let along anything on electronics itself or on computer design on buffers and reshaping circuits. :rolleyes:

They live in a magical world with no understanding of cause and affect. :cs:

One thing they do seem to have is the great ability to write on an on. Writing many words without writing anything of importance that all. I would love for once to see and article written by one stereo magazine saying what the physical reason was for the change in sound. Just a plain answer “yes, it sounded better or no, it sounded worse and this is the physical reason why�. But they just ramble on and on using their audiophile words that have little real meaning, but only to them. Why use 10 words then you can use 1,000 and say nothing and keep the manufacturer happy. :rolleyes:

Off the soup box, again.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

trainman

“I myself, would at least think that there are maybe other ways to apprehend the coming vibrations except the ear. Is it "paranormal"?�

Explain deaf people who don’t hear at all. If there were paranormal ways of hearing they would be the first to know about it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[MRC_Hans]

Glad to see the ball keep rolling and see the various members of the Double Blind Test Order reply.

We are always glad to answer members of the Audiopholly Delusions Order.

The other side of the coin though, is that the arguments are many, and, aiming to answer to all of them, the more specific of my answers get lost in quantity.

Perhaps you should aim for quality instead?


*snip*

No, mister. The one that made the claim first was mr. Randi, and he is not a recording engineer.

No, mister. The claim was made by the GSIC proponents.

*snip*

Well, actually, there is an explanatory note about how GSIC works (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm) - I don't understand a thing

You are not missing anything. It is total gibberish. In fact, I suspect it is satirical. The real fun thing (assuming it is serious) is that even if every one of the absurd claims made there were true, they would STILL not explain the GSIC :rolleyes:.

*snipped, totally irrelevant yarn on cables and such. *

*snip*

*snip some more*

But the more significant thing LTC8K6, is included in my own "protocol": If you read it carefuly, you will see that I state that actualy the sound on certain recordings could be WORSE than the original. And that at least, 69DODGE, proves to me that I am not fooled by my expectations!

No, it proves that you ARE fooled by your expectations, especiallt as the GSIC sellers do NOT claim that it enhances the requency response. And indeed how DO you suggest that EVEN IF IT WORKED it should be able to add information to the disk?

*snip*

No Hans. We have two different discs - not one. If I was claiming that I have paranormal abbilities and I can guess between two "normal" cd's, which one is which, the test would be the same with only the exception of putting the GSIC

No, we have two identical disks (in the JREF test). The only difference being that one is treated.

*snip*

If I could prove to be right, someone could still claim that the chip does not work, but I have "paranormal abbilities".

Ehr, well that is true. You might be clairvoyant instead. I think we'll live with that risk ;).

On my question "are you sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way? you reply: "No. And?"

If "no" Hans, then, why? Could you give me an answer on this?

Because listening to music is partly a subjective experience. And?

*snip*

I myself, would at least think that there are maybe other ways to apprehend the coming vibrations except the ear. Is it "paranormal"?

No.

This is the case Hans. You say that a musical performance is your personal and subjective perception and you agree that five different people could describe the sound of the same reproducing system differently.

All that is accepted by you - the only thing that is not accepted is that I may find that GSIC makes a difference: No - this one is not accepted, this one is "paranormal" and to prove its existence, we should exit the "personal and subjective" and enter the "impersonal and objective" through the only one Heaven's Gate - the DBT.

I think you get my point.

Yes, and you are wrong. We are not talking about five different people, etc. We are not talking about how a certain piece of music gives one person different experiences at different times, depending on mood or context. We are talking about a claim that the SAME piece of sound, heard by the SAME person, in the SAME listening situation is changed by the chip. In other words, we are talking about a difference that is supposed to depend ONLY on whether the CD is "chipped" or not. All the other things you mention are irrelevant.

Hans

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
ASHLES

None of them actual divert from the basic question - does the thing work?

Your basic question ASHLES is not "whether the thing works" - it is "whether Trainman that claims it works has passed the DBT". This is your ONLY worry on the subject I am afraid.
No, my question was actually the one I very clearly stated.

It doesn't matter what test we use to determine whether the thing works, it only maters that the test is objective and free from bias. But for some reason you don't wish to remove these factors from your testing.

Hmm... I wonder why?

Your protocol is laughable because it doesn't achieve the whole point of the testing process - it does not clarify whether the device makes any difference, or whether it is all in the subject's mind.
But, by the sounds of it, that isn't very important to you.

You don't really care whether it works or not.

Well if you want to call us all a member of a cult then I guess the cult would be one of "People who think that claims should be tested objectively where possible".
As opposed to your cult of "Who cares about the truth - only sales matter".

I know which "cult" I'd rather be a member of.

You appear to be atempting to insult us, but actually you are consistently complementing our standards of testing.
So thank you.

[Paulhoff]

Intelligent Chip, GSIC-10 (upgrades 10 discs) $16
Intelligent Chip, GSIC-30 (upgrades 30 discs) $40
Shipping: $1.00 USPS First Class Mail in US, $1.00 Airmail to Europe

This chip is so intelligent that it knows how many CD's it has upgraded, outstanding! :clap:

Also they only cost money. :o

Paul

:) :) :)

[alfaniner]

Before this thread gets to 24 pages, I'll be the first to ask...

"Have you done a valid double-blind test yourself yet?"

If not, then get off the stage.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
There are recordings out there, that are more expensive because they use the latest conversion modes, and noone doubted the efficiency of the process - noone called the audio engineers to prove the difference in a double blind test.You said a similar thing before, about how no one questions music reviewers, and I still don't understand your point. People might choose to challenge music reviewers to a blind test or not, and people might choose to challenge audio engineers to a blind test or not. If they do not, it's because they happen to think that the reviewers or engineers would pass a blind test, not because they think that a blind test is in principle the wrong approach.

It is, obviously, the right approach. If someone can distinguish a GSIC-treated disc from an untreated disc when he knows which is which, but he can't reliably distinguish between them just by listening to them, then clearly he does not really hear a difference; he only thinks he does.

I honestly do not see how anyone could disagree with this.But the more significant thing LTC8K6, is included in my own "protocol": If you read it carefuly, you will see that I state that actualy the sound on certain recordings could be WORSE than the original. And that at least, 69DODGE, proves to me that I am not fooled by my expectations!It doesn't prove it to me. Perhaps your expectation is not that the GSIC necessarily improves the sound, but merely that it has some effect on the sound.

If you couldn't pass a blind test, would that convince you that you were being fooled by your expectations? If not, why not?

Is it at least conceivable to you that one could be fooled by his expectations? If so, how would go about checking whether someone was or was not being so fooled?None of them actual divert from the basic question - does the thing work?

Your basic question ASHLES is not "whether the thing works" - it is "whether Trainman that claims it works has passed the DBT". This is your ONLY worry on the subject I am afraid.The question seems to be, what is the definition of "works"?

Shall we say that the GSIC "works" if a GSIC-treated disc sounds different to someone who knows it's been treated, but sounds the same to someone who doesn't know it's been treated?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Before this thread gets to 24 pages, I'll be the first to ask...

"Have you done a valid double-blind test yourself yet?"

If not, then get off the stage.
Good point.

[BPSCG]

trainman -

Simple question.

Can you do it with your eyes closed?

I mean, if you were to play an untreated CD, then had someone stop the CD, then closed your eyes (no peeking!), and then a minute later, the other person started up the CD player, would you always be able to tell whether or not the CD that was now playing was the same untreated one you'd just been listening to, or a GSIC-treated version of the same CD?

If so, you should absolutely, positively apply for the JREF prize, because you can demonstrate paranormal ability - either the paranormal ability of your own ears, or the paranormal ability of the GSIC device, which defies the laws of physics. You could then buy every single recording of every single Beethoven work available and live a life of bliss, bliss and heaven.

If you can't do it with your eyes closed, then why are you wasting your money on these devices?

So, again, can you do it with your eyes closed?

Oh, one other question: Your favorite performance of the Waldstein? I have a couple, neither of which I'm completely happy with (Ashkenazy and Kempff).

[jmercer]

Do not debate with Trolls... for they are subtle, and quick to distort! :D

[LTC8K6]

Trainman, does it bother you that Golden Sound is selling blank CD-R's that have been treated?

There is no music on them to treat, after all.

You can't play a blank CD-R to treat it, anyway.

CD-R's are made completely differently from commercially recorded CD's.

What do you think the GSIC does to the blank CD-R's to make future recordings sound better?

You will be writing to the CD-R after the treatment, so how do you think the treatment stays effective when the CD-R is recorded?

Do you think the GSIC can tell the difference between a CD-R and a normal CD and treat them differently?

Don't you think it would have to, given their different constructions and methods of recording?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue19/goldensound.htm

A ringing endorsement of Golden Sound's junk.

When I read this stuff, it makes me cringe.

I want to ask, "How can people be so stupid?", but I know better......

Instead, I realize this sort of garbage must be challenged.

[Ducky]

Ok trainman, since you seem to be intent on defending this crapola, here's a thought to consider:

per the claim of GSIC:

The Intelligent Chip corrects the clock-fluctuation problem within 2 seconds, resulting in sound that is clearer/less distorted, with a deeper soundstage, more "air" and lower background noise. This improvement is especially apparent on very good discs.

and this:

Description/Theory: The Intelligent Chip is a "new generation," high-tech device that corrects a particular problem inherent in all commercial CD/DVD/SACD discs, including movies and video games. This problem is produced by slight fluctuations in the master clock(s) when pressing the disc. This "clock fluctuation" problem (jitter) is one reason why consumer digital discs frequently "don't sound quite right," or have a "high-frequency edge."

First of all CD's aren't manufactured (burned) in real time, so the idea the clock problem has anything to do with the CD is ridiculous. Secondly if you had a problem with your cd player in this manner you wouldn't hear continuous music. It would skip, or error out and not read the CD.

On top of that, to say an external device can either 1) change the recorded media on a CD without touching it or 2) affect the CD player to correct a sampling/clock issue without changing the programming of the player is complete nonsense.

So, you're saying this chip does something. Please tell me how.

I am even willing to analyze two identical cd's for data integrity. One would be "treated" and one wouldn't. I will bet my best guitar they're exactly the same bit for bit.

And, by the way, I wasn't calling you ignorant, I was affirming your statement that you were ignorant.


Link to the above claims of GSIC:


Here (http://www.dhcones.com/otheracc.html)


Edited to add:

Interestingly, the clock claim seems to be gone and the new science woo of this (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm) page is apparently a new explination. Also complete nonsense, but I see Hans already addressed this.

Gotta wonder why the change in explinations? Either it was engineered to do something or it wasn't. What's with the shell game of explinations?

Answer: fraud.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by fowlsound
I am even willing to analyze two identical cd's for data integrity. One would be "treated" and one wouldn't. I will bet my best guitar they're exactly the same bit for bit.

Here (http://www.dhcones.com/otheracc.html)

It's been done - in fact, it was done on the Audiophile forum prior to Wellfed's application here, which he was fully aware of. The result? Exactly what you expected - there is NO difference between a treated and untreated disc.

Wellfed - when confronted about this - eventually agreed that any difference heard might be utterly subjective on his part. One of his disarming efforts at frankness while he continued to try and build his deceptive case against JREF in order to preserve his tattered credibility. Eventually he abandoned his efforts and resorted to simple ad hominem attacks, slander, and libelous remarks... for which he was duly and justly banned from these forums after multiple public warnings. (Which he claimed were never given - even though everyone here saw them appear multiple times over several days.)

This, then, is the mentality we are dealing with here. Trainman is intent on trolling these forums in defense of Wellfed and Golden Sound. (In fact, I'd love for the forum administrators to see if Trainman's IP happens to belong to Golden Sound. Or maybe it's Wellfed in disguise - you never know, and I wouldn't put it past him given his behavior here. :D)

Anyway, asking Trainman for an explanation of how this works is a waste of your time. Like any good troll, he's already anticipated that by stating he doesn't know how it works - it just does. Defense by ignorance. :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jmercer
It's been done - in fact, it was done on the Audiophile forum prior to Wellfed's application here, which he was fully aware of. The result? Exactly what you expected - there is NO difference between a treated and untreated disc.

Wellfed - when confronted about this - eventually agreed that any difference heard might be utterly subjective on his part. One of his disarming efforts at frankness while he continued to try and build his deceptive case against JREF in order to preserve his tattered credibility. Eventually he abandoned his efforts and resorted to simple ad hominem attacks, slander, and libelous remarks... for which he was duly and justly banned from these forums after multiple public warnings. (Which he claimed were never given - even though everyone here saw them appear multiple times over several days.)

This, then, is the mentality we are dealing with here. Trainman is intent on trolling these forums in defense of Wellfed and Golden Sound. (In fact, I'd love for the forum administrators to see if Trainman's IP happens to belong to Golden Sound. Or maybe it's Wellfed in disguise - you never know, and I wouldn't put it past him given his behavior here. :D)

Anyway, asking Trainman for an explanation of how this works is a waste of your time. Like any good troll, he's already anticipated that by stating he doesn't know how it works - it just does. Defense by ignorance. :)

Yeah I didn't think my Paul Reed Smith was in any danger of being shipped to trainman.

Arguments from ignorance are the most irritating to deal with.

There's no convincing a troll of anything I guess.

[trainman]

Dear Sceptics

I have to work intensivly today, and I have to apologise for not answering personaly to your replies. You see, life can be tenacious, especially if you don't have one million dollars in your pocket!

I want to thank all the friends that were ready to deal with me with respect, even if they didn't feel to, and, even more, those that turned to do so in the process. I am going to answer to every interesting argument, even if written provocatively - as for those that call me to "apply or back off", I will have to ignore them, not because their manner is "cultish" but because it is boring.

This is a public forum - it may be an arena, but an arena that uses arguments.

In the meanwhile, let me just quote a part of an article. It is from TNT audio e-magazine from Italy, and bears the title "Bits of wire and pieces of string - Why cable reviews are almost useless"(http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/bitsofwire_e.html).




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever we discuss bits of wire, sorry, "cables", we are right back in the territory of the 70s subjective vs objective debate; one which still rages among certain folk. There is a perfectly valid psychological explanation for the heat of these debates that has nothing to do with audio, art or science. Good science and good engineering are largely a matter of amassing sufficient repeatable data to be able to draw hypothesis and use these to make reasonable predictions of what might result from a certain action. This must be checked by experiments that test these hypotheses. Very simple really, one might think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeatable personal observation provides us with uniquely validated evidence more than the rhetoric of church, state or audio advertisement. But there are those who cloak themselves in the language of science who insist that phenomena do not exist if they cannot explain them in their own terms, rather like the tobbacco companies who until recently insisted that no causal link could be proved between smoking and lung-cancer, may have been a technically accurate statement at the time but was a lie in any other conventional phenomenological encounter with evidence, and was illogically extended to the hypothesis that therefore cancer was not caused by smoking. For example there are still those who insist that we cannot hear differences between bits of wire in audio systems because they have cannot envisage how such differences could exist. They use logical argument to override sensory experience, which is how many of us manage to spend years living unsatisfactory lives because we ought to do what we are doing, because we have been told that is the way to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me those objectivists who refute all cable differences are merely taking a position similar to the Rennaissance religious backlash against new knowledge of the solar-system. The objectivist position is equal in evidence base to any other religious faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subjectivists, on the other extreme, know that copious doses of money & snake-oil & pixie-dust (mined until quite recently in the English county of Cornwall, whose residents don't call themselves English, but Kernow, where it is still called Piskie-dust) will transform the electrical signals entering & leaving amplifiers from ignorant neanderthal electrons leaping from cave-to-cave (electron holes) into elegant sophisticates possessed of the savoire-faire of soundstage & screen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cable-charmers imbue bits-of-wire with mystical magical properties not yet known to science, but familiar to spiritualist mediums. This subjectivist position ranks alongside faith healing in its adherence to an empirical evidence base backed by academic rigour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know that I have angered both the Objectivists and the Subjectivists in equal measure. They are both suffering from the same psychological condition: an inability to cope with uncertainty. Indeed, they may suffer from a fear of uncertainty. To both groups, "uncertain = unsafe". The objectivists want to measurable-repeatable readable test results that clearly state that there is a difference between A & B and that the difference proves that A is better than B and therefore might justify higher unit cost. The subjectivists need to know that they will hear that A is better than B because several other people say they have heard that A sounds better than B and that there is unlikely to be an even better C because only A has ingredient/process X.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wouldn't express it in a better way.

Hope to talk with you tomorrow, with even more of you, people!

Trainman

P.S. By mistake, I sent this post to the next thread, the...medical claims! I hope to be understood clearly, that I do NOT have any!

[chillzero]

Originally posted by trainman
- as for those that call me to "apply or back off", I will have to ignore them, not because their manner is "cultish" but because it is boring.

This is a public forum - it may be an arena, but an arena that uses arguments.


But this part of the public forum specifically concerns taking the challenge.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear Sceptics

I have to work intensivly today, and I have to apologise for not answering personaly to your replies. *sniiiip* No time to answer straight arguments and questions, but plenty of time to post long, irrelevant clippings. Sure!

Hans

[Bronze Dog]

- as for those that call me to "apply or back off", I will have to ignore them, not because their manner is "cultish" but because it is boring.

This is a public forum - it may be an arena, but an arena that uses arguments.
Translation: I refuse to provide the one, best piece of evidence for my claim.

[alfaniner]

1) There are differences in cables and other physical equipment that affect sound quality.

2)The GSIC does not work because what it claims is impossible.

[Paulhoff]

I am an Amateur Radio Operator; the word amateur only refers to that I don’t make money when doing radio. It does not mean amateur in the theory about it, or the use of electronic theories.

I use frequencies up to 450 MHz, I know of a few amateurs that use up to a few GHz. Not once have there been any strange things happening. If there were anything strange going on that science could not explain at low audio frequencies it would be many times bigger at 450 MHz and very obvious. Nothing shows up.

The only things in cable (or any wire) are capacitance, inductance, and resistance, nothing else. No brake in period is needed either, just another BS story. My cables never changed with time or it would have showed up with the SWR, Standing Wave Ratio and reports from other hams. Also not once does they sound any different with time.

It is only when those rip off manufactures added capacitance, inductive, or resistance and or some combination of the three to the cable to change the sound. This is not what HI-FI is all about. True they may add sound that is more pleasing, but it is not Hi-Fl and science knows what they are doing, do you.

I was taking to an amateur friend (call sign W3IUR) about an audiophile friend and how he is always changing things on his stereo system. Well my amateur friend and his wife told me about their neighbor who lived behind them years ago. He was always playing with his Hi-Fi system, always spending more time behind the system then it front listening. Always changing things, never happy with it, always tweaking it the system. You my friend have the same decease. You do not know what you are looking for so you will try anything, because you expect more than there is. You want what cannot be done. You want a band, group or whatever in your room, and like a picture is a copy of the something, it can not be done, period. It is a reproduction and it will never ever be the same as the original. Get over it, and grow up. :D

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Originally posted by BPSCG
trainman -

Simple question.

Can you do it with your eyes closed?

I mean, if you were to play an untreated CD, then had someone stop the CD, then closed your eyes (no peeking!), and then a minute later, the other person started up the CD player, would you always be able to tell whether or not the CD that was now playing was the same untreated one you'd just been listening to, or a GSIC-treated version of the same CD?

If so, you should absolutely, positively apply for the JREF prize, because you can demonstrate paranormal ability - either the paranormal ability of your own ears, or the paranormal ability of the GSIC device, which defies the laws of physics. You could then buy every single recording of every single Beethoven work available and live a life of bliss, bliss and heaven.

If you can't do it with your eyes closed, then why are you wasting your money on these devices?

So, again, can you do it with your eyes closed?

trainman,

If there's one reply that you should answer, I think this should be the one.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
But there are those who cloak themselves in the language of science who insist that phenomena do not exist if they cannot explain them in their own terms, [ ... ]So, what phenomenon do you believe exists which we insist does not? That you can listen to a plain CD and to a GSIC-treated one and tell them apart when you already know which is which, or that you can listen to them and tell them apart when you do not already know which is which?

I'm sure you can do the former. Are you sure you can do the latter? If not, then what are we arguing about? (And if you can do it, you can win a million dollars. Even a boring million dollars is still a million dollars.)

[Odin]

But there are those who cloak themselves in the language of science who insist that phenomena do not exist if they cannot explain them in their own terms

So if the Phemomena disagree with the laws of physics then the laws of physics are wrong? And no scientific evidence of the phemomena is required for this, just experience?

That a phenomena does not exist is the default stance unless scientific evidence shows otherwise. This stance may turn out to be wrong for any given phenomena, but science corrects itself in response to new evidence and if a phenomena were genuine would accept it eventually. Its better to be occasionally wrong than accept anything with weak evidence and be wrong repeatedly.


They use logical argument to override sensory experience

Not logic! Thats a tool of Satan and will damn you to the HELLFIRE!:D

[Bronze Dog]

They use logical argument to override sensory experience
And we all know your senses are perfectly infallible, incapable of fooling your all-knowing, unbiased, perfect mind.






So... Who died and made you God?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Trainman said:
I have to work intensivly today, and I have to apologise for not answering personaly to your replies. You see, life can be tenacious, especially if you don't have one million dollars in your pocket!
Would your life be better if you transfered the money from JREF's pocket to yours? We know how you can!

~~ Paul

[Paulhoff]

http://www.sapdesignguild.org/resources/optical_illusions/images/motion.jpg

Your senses are perfectly infallible. Nothing in this picture looks like it is moving.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Bronze Dog]

:re: I am under your power.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Paulhoff


Your senses are perfectly infallible. Nothing in this picture looks like it is moving.


That is JUST SO cool. That's the best optical illusion I've seen in a long time.

[Paulhoff]

trainman

Since your eyes can be fooled, what the hell makes you think that you ears can’t be fooled too.

Paul

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That is JUST SO cool. That's the best optical illusion I've seen in a long time.

I saw that one on this page. Optical Illusions (http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html)
Lots of other good ones on there too.

But here's one I just came across and posted in another thread so you may have missed it.

Note which is the angry face and which is the calm face. Now step back about 10 feet and look again...

[Darat]

For the above faces optical illusion you can also zoom the images in and out in your broswer.

[Bronze Dog]

Ah! They changed! Devil box, get off my desk!

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by new drkitten
That is JUST SO cool. That's the best optical illusion I've seen in a long time. Better than this one?http://gallery.future-i.com/illusions/pic:boat/full/opticalillusion.jpg

Or this one? (The French text says, "No idea how this works, but if you concentrate for five minutes, you start to see a waterfall at the back of the image!") http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/000/123/410_Optical_Illusion_2.jpg

[jmercer]

There's a back to the image???

[Paulhoff]

Waterfall at the back of the image, what waterfall?????? :j2:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hitch]

Originally posted by jmercer
There's a back to the image???

Oh, there's definitely a back.

But I'm still having trouble finding the waterfall.

[Bronze Dog]

:xheart ... Huh? Someone say something about text?

[69dodge]

The rotating circles have something to do with your eyes moving. If you focus on one point and keep your eyes perfectly still, the circles stop rotating.

[69dodge]

I have an idea about how the faces work. I think they passed a photo of a calm face and a photo of an angry face each through a high-pass filter and a low-pass filter. Then, they combined the filter outputs the wrong way, so that one picture has the high-frequency features of the calm face and the low-frequency features of the angry face, and vice versa for the other picture. When you're close you notice the high-frequency features, i.e., the fine details, and when you're far you notice the low-frequency features, i.e., the course details.

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by trainman

FLATWORM: I realy like your manners and, if you read carefuly my second "volume" (!) you'll see that on some points I do agree with you. Well, actually, there is an explanatory note about how GSIC works (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm) - I don't understand a thing and, as I said before, I don't feel obliged to defend it or refuse it.


Without going into the serious abuses of quantum mechanics that appear in the linked article, I would like to point out that they still offer no explanation as to how the audio is being improved. They go through a lengthy and complicated explanation of how the GSIC chip allegedly produces "strong quantum interactions" of an unspecified nature which by unspecified means bring about unspecified changes in the CD player input.

Not impressive.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Flatworm
Without going into the serious abuses of quantum mechanics that appear in the linked article, I would like to point out that they still offer no explanation as to how the audio is being improved. They go through a lengthy and complicated explanation of how the GSIC chip allegedly produces "strong quantum interactions" of an unspecified nature which by unspecified means bring about unspecified changes in the CD player input.

Not impressive.

Not only not impresive, a complete shift from earlier explanations I've read that state the chip corrects the "master clock jitter"

Someone must have pointed out their first explanation of this scam is easily debunked and they changed their tune.

[richardm]

Originally posted by 69dodge
The rotating circles

That reminds me - this one is rather good. Gaze at the cross in the middle and see what happens to the purple dots...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/dotillusion.gif


(From the rather fine Grand Illusions (http://www.grand-illusions.com/) website.)

[Palimpsest]

Originally posted by richardm
That reminds me - this one is rather good. Gaze at the cross in the middle and see what happens to the purple dots...


That... that is just the coolest thing ever! :eek:

[Kell]

Also from Grand Illusions, my personal favorite is the pinwheel (http://www.grand-illusions.com/pinwheel.htm). You need to download the small app to experience the effect ( 22kb ). It's worth it though :cool:

[Paulhoff]

The purple dots...

This shows what happens when the cones in the eye get tired of firing, and the other ones that are not firing as much start to show thru. Look at something, any color for awhile then look at something white, the opposite color wills temporary be seen.

The same thing happens with our wife and with our ears, after her talking on and on our ears get tried and we hear nothing. It is a self defense mechanism. :o

Paul

:) :) :)

[Palimpsest]

The purple dots...

This shows what happens when the cones in the eye get tired of firing, and the other ones that are not firing as much start to show thru. Look at something, any color for awhile then look at something white, the opposite color wills temporary be seen.


Oh, sure. I understand how it works. Doesn't make it any less stunning :)

[alfaniner]

Uh, oh. Don't let Interesting Ian see that one...

Hey, I just figured out what this thread is all about. It's not about audio gear, but about a group's new CD coming out:

"Audio Tweaks and the Double Blind Test Cult" -- Kind of like Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, or Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution.

Some of the selections will be:

The Magic Ring
G-S-I-C!!
Cheap Cable Blues
I Dotted My Speakers, She Slammed The Door

[Paulhoff]

Some people do not want to know how things work, because for them it takes away the magic, other like me and I guess yourself, knowing how it works doesn’t. I know there is no magic but I still like to see it done, or watch movies like Harry Potter, The Sixth Sense, etc. Everything is an illusion, it is how our (mind, brain, to me they are the same) interprets the world.

For those out there that don’t know, you tell. It may lead them to ask other questions.

Paul


:) :) :)

[trainman]

Dear Sceptics

It’s almost a week now, fighting alone in the belly of the Beast, against some of its warriors, and as expected, I was about to lose some ground: The question about the GSIC, the audio tweaks and the Double Blind Test Order continues its downgrading to the subject of “Trainman and the blind Test� and, even more, “Trainman and the 1 million dollars�.

Friendly and hostile observers keep asking when I am going to lift the gauntlet, why don’t I take the challenge, why don’t I give the only one piece of evidence it is needed to be credible. Some friends try to encourage me, some others to provoke, even laughing on my duty to labor (thank you compatriot!) All this is pretty expectable.

What is missing still though is the personal element on your part: Are you really interested, and to what extend would you personally search the possibility of such a phenomenon (or a similar one) to exist – even insisting that you will not pay a cent for that? Why should the success or failure of another person to a challenge, or the testing of a product by a third part, be more significant to you than your own adventure?

What is the fact that distances you from the possibility, a product like the GSIC to be true to its promises? Is it the lack of an explanation (or the absurdity of the one given)? Is it the plainness of its appearance? Would it seem more credible if it was placed inside a big box with an electrical socket and a very dense circuit, costing 10 times more?

Would it be credible if a big record company would announce to use it - if an accepted manufacturer declared its efficiency? For how many products we use, you are sure that an “indisputable� evident theory lies behind their manufacturing?

My previous comments about the music reviewers, (record producers, audio engineers and so on) and the non existence of a demand to prove their skillfulness through a double blind test, were regarded as “irrelevant� by some of you. I hope you won’t regard my comments above, as irrelevant too.

Trainman

P.S. I am going to leave you till Monday – wish me good luck on my return!

[trainman]

FOWLSOUND: I am certainly not the right person to explain the connection of digital jitter with the clock at the recording process. And I cannot imagine that you have no idea of this well established and accepted link. If not, take a look at the article “DIGITabilis: crash course on digital audio interfaces� (http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf1.html, as well as the article “Why jitter matters in high resolution digital audio� at http://www.broadcastpapers.com/audio/jitter01.htm.

I have to repeat though, that I am not bound by the explanation of the manufacturer, who can as well be a person that simply cannot stand (commercially or personally) to state that “he does not know why this think works�. And if he doesn’t (or is not willing to tell), how could I?

I’d like to ask you a question: As an audio engineer, do you find that “bit to bit correct� cd-r’s that were burned for instance, through a laptop, sound the same with the originals? What about a cd-r copy of a cd-r? It would be interesting to make some personal technical research on these two copies, but testing only the data integrity will not carry us very far, I am afraid. Keep me informed about your ideas, though!

BPSCG and RIPLEY TWENTY-NINE: To be honest with you, I haven’t done a blind test myself using the GSIC. I have conducted blind tests using other similar, even weirder stuff, with friends sitting at the chair of the “subject�, and without even telling them what I was doing to alter the sound (there were tests with the same cd playing). Their description was similar to mine. But again, you can catch me on this: Was the test “scientific�? It wasn’t. To be such, it is stated that I should have contacted a person with experience in psychological test statistics, use more than one or two “subjects�, hold accounts. Why didn’t I? Because I didn’t guess, neither did I prepare to prove myself right in a forum or institution like the JREF.

When I was watching about 20 years ago an impressive documentary on t.v. with James Randi, I couldn’t guess that someday I would cross my steps with him, or his people!

As for Beethoven, I wish we had more space for some discussion. You simply, cannot find a pianist to have it all, on all his sonatas, and I don’t know which kind of interpretation you prefer: Lyrical, romantic, technically perfect, serious, classical?

On “Waldstein� for start, try to find Brendel’s performance, a sane first rate classical choice on Vox label. If you prefer a bit less “british� interpretation, there is always the praised lyrical view of Emil Gilels (DG), as well as the one of John O’ Conor (Telarc label). Last, for a bit of frenzy in the equation, you may try Richard Goode’s. Good luck!

JMERCER: Not only the forum administrators should cheque my IP, but I think you should call the NSA too. Who knows? I may be a Taliban agent, aiming to corrupt the last healthy mind in America.

MRC Hans: Was that a show of your good manners, or you simply don’t know how to do the copy-paste?

CABBY: Should I discuss with you after the Challenge is over, Cabby?

BRONZDOG: What makes you think I care to persuade anyone here, Bronzdog?

ALFANINER, 69DODGE: There are differences in cables, but with the exception of very radical designs (huge inductance for instance that could upset or even damage certain amplifiers) we have not any indication, how and why small changes in the LCR parameters alter the sound. That’s why certain people, especially engineers, insist that there can be no difference between cables, concerning sound. Individual experiences, as well as the market itself, prove the opposite, though.

LTC8K6: I was a bit late to get your question, sorry. Your comments are reasonable. I never bothered with the cd-r’s and I don’t remember to have read any paper on how they are treated, or their connection with the Chip. Is it written somewhere? I don’t even know if they continue to produce them.

If I were you though LTC8K6, I would ask the following question: “Hey, Trainman, if the Chip does all what it promises, what about the video cd’s and the dvd’s? Don’t they have the same “fluctuation problems� and shouldn’t the treatment affect their picture quality?�

ODIN: You don’t need to go to the other extreme. You can test your senses yourself. I have done it, and since I was fooled, I fooled other people too. There is hope that someday I will be reasonable, but why should I be the only one here, having done a test at all?

PAULHOFF: I liked your last posts, but not the very first one, where, although a “scholar� you didn’t seem to discriminate hearing and “apprehending the coming vibrations�. I maybe resemble to those people that every Sunday washes their car, get furious with the least bit of the idea of a scratch and you never see them actually driving it! Everyone called them jerks - me too! Actually, I do need better equipment, but I also need new furniture!

Weird stuff can be fun – especially when it works. As to your arguments, Paulhoff, I cannot doubt your experiences, but I would question the fidelity of your apparatus, since the needs of the radio operator are different. I also, cannot understand what do you mean by “strange things happening� – what “strange things�?

Oh, by the way: I remember when I was a little boy, that on the SW band, there were some peculiar voices talking numbers periodically. Are they still there? What was that? I was always wondering!

ILLUSION BRIGADE: Oh, those wonderful illusions! They seem to move, but nothing is moving, and when you concentrate to the centre of the wheels, they stop! But the argument can be inverted: You send me an illusion making picture, and I see her on the screen. And I am telling you, “Hey Paulhoff, I’ve got the stuff, a “snake oil� that I can apply on the screen and see the wheels turning faster than before!� What is your answer? “This cannot be – this is impossible; this is against the laws of physics!�

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear Sceptics

It’s almost a week now, fighting alone in the belly of the Beast,

Yes, admirable courage :).

against some of its warriors, and as expected, I was about to lose some ground: The question about the GSIC, the audio tweaks and the Double Blind Test Order continues its downgrading to the subject of “Trainman and the blind Test� and, even more, “Trainman and the 1 million dollars�.

But you would serve yourself well by refraining from standard troll-type actions like declaring people who disagee with you a cult. Or else, don't whine about the resultant flak.

Friendly and hostile observers keep asking when I am going to lift the gauntlet, why don’t I take the challenge, why don’t I give the only one piece of evidence it is needed to be credible. Some friends try to encourage me, some others to provoke, even laughing on my duty to labor (thank you compatriot!) All this is pretty expectable.

Yes. Come to a skeptic forum, and you'll be challenged to provide evidence for your claims. What did you expect?

What is missing still though is the personal element on your part: Are you really interested, and to what extend would you personally search the possibility of such a phenomenon (or a similar one) to exist – even insisting that you will not pay a cent for that?

We can't be expected to research every outrageous claim out there. The onus of proof is on the claimant.

Why should the success or failure of another person to a challenge, or the testing of a product by a third part, be more significant to you than your own adventure?

Simple. If I try to sell you a flying pig, do you trot off and research pig's ability to fly? Not if you have any sense in your head. Instead, you ask me to show it to you, and as long as I do not produce, you don't worry about how pigs might fly

What is the fact that distances you from the possibility, a product like the GSIC to be true to its promises?

The fact that multiple physical laws make it impossible. The technical explanation is on the GSIC Audio thread. ....And I reiterate it below.

Is it the lack of an explanation (or the absurdity of the one given)?

Both. It has no explanation, but if they could give an explanation that looked even remotely plausible, we might be lured into analyzing it further. As it is, it just confirms the notion that these people are swindlers.

Is it the plainness of its appearance? Would it seem more credible if it was placed inside a big box with an electrical socket and a very dense circuit, costing 10 times more?

No, it would still defy the laws of physics.

Would it be credible if a big record company would announce to use it - if an accepted manufacturer declared its efficiency?

Academic. A credible company would not endorse it.

For how many products we use, you are sure that an “indisputable� evident theory lies behind their manufacturing?

Not all of them, for sure. This is not the only product we are skeptical about.

My previous comments about the music reviewers, (record producers, audio engineers and so on) and the non existence of a demand to prove their skillfulness through a double blind test, were regarded as “irrelevant� by some of you.

They are irrelevant for two reasons:

1) Music reviewers do not claim to defy the laws of physics.

2) We are not discussing music reviewers. It is another subject.

I hope you won’t regard my comments above, as irrelevant too.



Trainman

P.S. I am going to leave you till Monday – wish me good luck on my return!

It seems you fail to understand the point about the GSIC: It simply does not make sense.

- The problem it claims to correct does not exist. Clock information is not recorded on the disk, it is recreated by the CD player from a crystal controlled reference.

- There is no way it could tap information from the disk outside the box, let alone do it in a few seconds.

- Even if it could somehow get at the infomation, there is no way it could deduce which part of the information is right and which is wrong. Think of it: How could it "know" how any given record ought to sound?

- Even if it could make some information available for the disk, there is no way it could get it into the box to the disk.

- Even if it could get information into the box, there is no way it could change the hard-coded information on the nonwriteable CD.

So you see, it is not just one impossibility, it is a whole series of absurdities. It is absurd as claiming to be able to walk to the moon.

I realize that without some thechnical knowledge, this was probably not clear to you from the start. But now it has been made clear to you.

Hans

[richardm]

Originally posted by trainman
Dwhy don’t I take the challenge, why don’t I give the only one piece of evidence it is needed to be credible.

Yes, why don't you?


Why should the success or failure of another person to a challenge, or the testing of a product by a third part, be more significant to you than your own adventure?

So are you now saying that you won't test this device because we should have better things to do with our time?

I knew this would all turn out to be our fault eventually.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by trainman
BPSCG and RIPLEY TWENTY-NINE: To be honest with you, I haven’t done a blind test myself using the GSIC. So you don't know if you can do it with your eyes closed.

Note, what people are suggesting here is simply that you prove to yourself that the GSIC effect is not an illusion. Prove to yourself that you could not possibly be deceiving yourself. If you wade through the Wellfed fiasco, you'll see there were many of us who described simple tests he could have administered to himself, with minimal outside assistance, to prove to himself that he really could detect the effect. Self-deception is always something researchers have to beware of.

He never did that, and instead reduced himself to name-calling and threats.
As for Beethoven, I wish we had more space for some discussion. You simply, cannot find a pianist to have it all, on all his sonatas, and I don’t know which kind of interpretation you prefer: Lyrical, romantic, technically perfect, serious, classical?Yes. :D

In Beethoven, I look for a sense of propulsion - not the same as tempo. Think Klemperer's recordings of the Leonora overtures.

I've heard good things about O'Conor. Have to look for him. Thanks.

[Paulhoff]

trainman

You appear to be extremly self-delusional. You state nothing that backs up your ideas, but you do show us you miss understandings of physics. You also have shown us that you can delude yourself in believing whatever you want even if it makes no sense. You will most likely never studying any real manuals and or scientific writing on CDs because you want to believe in something that does not exist but in your mind.

trainman
“Oh, by the way: I remember when I was a little boy, that on the SW band, there were some peculiar voices talking numbers periodically. Are they still there? What was that? I was always wondering!�

Put some of your snake-oil on you radio, and it all will be clear to you.

trainman
“PAULHOFF: I liked your last posts, but not the very first one, where, although a “scholar� you didn’t seem to discriminate hearing and “apprehending the coming vibrations�. I maybe resemble to those people that every Sunday washes their car, get furious with the least bit of the idea of a scratch and you never see them actually driving it! Everyone called them jerks - me too! Actually, I do need better equipment, but I also need new furniture! “

I used to handle return checks years back that where Social Security checks for my job. Once in a while I would get a check back with writing on it like this. Usually it would be in red ink that would go on and on written in circles around the check and say nothing. I would and still do feel sorry for people like this.

trainman
“The discriminate hearing�

The old ploy, “I can hear something you can’t hear, but can’t prove it�.

trainman
"That’s why certain people, especially engineers, insist that there can be no difference between cables, concerning sound. Individual experiences, as well as the market itself, prove the opposite, though."

For you it is not "individual experiences" it is "individual delusions".


Trainman I am done with you until you are no longer self-delusional.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Bronze Dog]

BRONZDOG: What makes you think I care to persuade anyone here, Bronzdog?
You're here. In a skeptical forum, where we ask for evidence. If you're not here to prove your claim, why are you here? The only other reason that comes to my mind is mud-slinging.

[MRC_Hans]

BRONZDOG: What makes you think I care to persuade anyone here, Bronzdog?Arrgh! Do they never get past this stage?

Believer arrives and endorses his belief.

Believer gets his arguments shredded into little pieces.

Believer says "I never said I wanted to convince anyone"

Hans

[Paulhoff]

MRC_Hans

"We counted the candles."?

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
MRC_Hans

"We counted the candles."?

Paul

:) :) :)

It was an answer to the question "How do you know how old the Earth is, anyway?"

:)

[Paulhoff]

Counting the candles is bad enough, but lighting them all must be a bear. :j2:

Paul


:) :) :)

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
Counting the candles is bad enough, but lighting them all must be a bear. :j2:

Paul


:) :) :)

Bears light candles? Do they use matches or a Zippo?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Hitch
Bears light candles? Do they use matches or a Zippo?
I believe they use Zippos. It's easy to start a forest fire with a smoldering match, so their leader, Smokey, banned their use among the ursine populace.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear Sceptics
...

P.S. I am going to leave you till Monday – wish me good luck on my return!

Page 3, and no valid double blind test yet.

Obviously, this weekend is a no-go.

[Paulhoff]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bear

:teacher:

Paul

:) :) :)

[LTC8K6]

If I were you though LTC8K6, I would ask the following question: “Hey, Trainman, if the Chip does all what it promises, what about the video cd’s and the dvd’s? Don’t they have the same “fluctuation problems� and shouldn’t the treatment affect their picture quality?�

All of the claims for the GSIC have been discussed quite a bit in a couple of other threads. I assure you that I did not overlook any of the claims in my debunking of the GSIC.

Trainman, I think it would be much better if a believer in the GSIC, such as yourself, asked for these explanations from the purveyors of the GSIC.

Report back and let us know how they explained it to you.

So far, we have been told 2 very different stories, both of which appear to be false.

Perhaps you can wrangle a third out of them?

[Ducky]

Originally posted by trainman
FOWLSOUND: I am certainly not the right person to explain the connection of digital jitter with the clock at the recording process. And I cannot imagine that you have no idea of this well established and accepted link. If not, take a look at the article “DIGITabilis: crash course on digital audio interfaces� (http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diginterf1.html, as well as the article “Why jitter matters in high resolution digital audio� at http://www.broadcastpapers.com/audio/jitter01.htm.

I have to repeat though, that I am not bound by the explanation of the manufacturer, who can as well be a person that simply cannot stand (commercially or personally) to state that “he does not know why this think works�. And if he doesn’t (or is not willing to tell), how could I?

I’d like to ask you a question: As an audio engineer, do you find that “bit to bit correct� cd-r’s that were burned for instance, through a laptop, sound the same with the originals? What about a cd-r copy of a cd-r? It would be interesting to make some personal technical research on these two copies, but testing only the data integrity will not carry us very far, I am afraid. Keep me informed about your ideas, though!




Blah blah.

Cdr's aren't burned the same way commercial CD's are.

And as long as your computer is functioning and you are burning the same image, yes they are the same.

All this nonsense aside (and yes I am very familiar with how digital audio interfaces work,) you still have no explanation of how a chip that never touches the CD or reprograms the cd player can have any affect on it.

You still have no acceptance of the fact these products do not do ANYTHING scientifically, and your response to them is psychological only.

They are snake oil. Plain and simple.

Stop wasting our time with lame justifacations for your gullability.

Edited to add:

Not bound by the explanations of the manufacturer? That's the biggest load of horse sh*t ever. What explanations do you have other than "I don't know but it works?" Go back to school and take some logic classes.

[Paulhoff]

Only for you out there that understand, so you know that I understand. Jitter in no way can get to the DA converter from the reading of the CD. It would be like reading a book in a moving car and having the words all jittering in my head.

These people who believe this have never ever read a book on the operations of computers or any other digital equipment, let alone CD players. They are as bad as the 5 blind men and the elephant.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
Only for you out there that understand, so you know that I understand. Jitter in no way can get to the DA converter from the reading of the CD. It would be like reading a book in a moving car and having the words all jittering in my head.

These people who believe this have never ever read a book on the operations of computers or any other digital equipment, let alone CD players. They are as bad as the 5 blind men and the elephant.

Paul

:) :) :)

Very well put.:)

[Soapy Sam]

You dn't gEt word jittER? Wht soRT of cAr dO yu dRiv?

[Paulhoff]

Soapy Sam

I saw the joke as it happen when I was a kid, that got Soap Sales kicked off the air for awhile. My father was laughing, but at the time I didn't get it.

Paul

[Paulhoff]

“You dn't gEt word jittER? Wht soRT of cAr dO yu dRiv?� :o

Digital error correction taking place.

"You don’t get word jitter? What sort of car do you drive?" :)

Paul

:) :) :)

[andycal]

trainman, you're not into homeopathy are you? Got a friend called Dr. Mas?....

[trainman]

Dear skeptics

With the exception of MRC Hans, that keeps answering to every phrase of mine (not an always successful method, though), most of the rest continue on the same line: “You have to give us the evidence, you came here we didn’t call you, stop wasting our time (!)�. Nobody seems to care.

About the slanders, the philosopher comments: “Come to a skeptic forum, and you'll be challenged to provide evidence for your claims. What did you expect?� Well, for sure I didn’t expect anything better. I should have known that the only argument that counts here, is taking the challenge of the DBT, or leave the stage. But, no sir, this is not a cult; this is a civilized community of thinkers!

Nevertheless: Trying to find some evidence that some serious companies actually take notice of the audio tweaks in general (even if they do not bother with the GSIC), in order to make another post later, the only thing that’s left for me at the moment, is to tell you what I would do in your place.

Since there is not one among you to try an audio tweak himself, even free of charge, and since the only thing that matters is how another person would manage to carry a test, I will give you a chance to save your soul.

Gather two, three or more among you, consult James Randi who is experienced, and create a tweak yourself. Make your own “chip�, “illuminator�, “green pen� and “snake oil� and send it to Mr Atkinson, Mr Wes Philips, Mr Ken Kessler in England and Mr. Jimmy Hughes – the man that introduced me to this weird world through one of his articles at “Hi-Fi Choice�.

Send them the tweak by mail, or find them at an audio fair – rent your own room and expose the effects of the so called “tweak� to the ignorant and the deluded. And at the time you would see that the audio reviewers and the populace would appreciate its effect, expose your true identity.

Born for provocation, this is exactly what I would do - taking at least the risk to fall into the hole I was digging for another. But then, should I was able to act thus, I wouldn’t be a “skeptic�.

Trainman

[trainman]

MRC Hans: You still don’t believe that I am not here to “sell� you something – do you? And for certain, I am not selling a flying pig. I never said that I was expecting to “research every outrageous claim out there�. I just said that you have some alternatives. As to the music reviewers, it may be another subject for you, but not for me: Just because something is theoretically possible, it doesn’t mean that is happening, too. Note - Some of the best pianists in history never recorded a single tune, as they were unable to perform in front of a record machine.

Last, as to the technical knowledge, I have already answered that I am not bound by the explanation of the inventor (as I am not bound by the unproved claims of some of the most well known cable manufacturers, too); the clock jitter of the a/d conversion is written on the disc though.

RICHARDM: I may be a coward, a troll, a lawyer of GSIC, a paranormal believer, a nuts, a poor person that has not the money to travel, and I can be a deaf one too. Also, I wouldn’t take a challenge as to having sex with a woman at will, in the presence of J. Randi, Kramer, cameras and journalists. I would probably fail – but I guess that some professionals would manage. What about you my friend?

BPSCG: No, the people here don’t want from me to prove something to myself. They want to give them a horror show, or to accept their claims. If I was telling you that I have done a DBT myself at home, would you all believe me? Of course not – but the rejecting GSIC post in the Audio Asylum was used as an argument here.

Now, as for Beethoven, you can listen to Fowlsound and, instead of searching for cd’s, try to find people to burn you some in their laptops. You can save a lot of money and time this way, since “as long as your computer is functioning and you are burning the same image, they are the same� and, since they are bit-to-bit the same, they must have the same quality..I could help you too – some of the classical cd’s in my record library are extremely difficult to find and are expensive. Why pay more?

PAULHOFF: Since you have done with me, I can only but wish you “Godspeed Paulhoff�.

BRONZEDOG: I am here in order to write all those beautiful things that I have written till now, to meet at least one interesting person, to show that not every thing is black and white, to suggest to you to trust (and doubt) your own experiences. If you do not wish to, why should I bother personally? And what have YOU all to do with the Randi’s DBT and 1 million dollar challenge? Are you going to pay me personally, Bronzedog?

LTC8K6: I am not going to do something that you could do yourself, friend. My question is – would you ask me the same thing if I was succeeding in a DBT?
This is not a sophistry of my part: I have already stated my opinion that the DBT is not the alpha and omega of proof, but in order to have a final acceptance of its effect someone should take the challenge. I have told you that there are many phenomenons in audio and music that cannot be explained and the makers are afraid to confess it, or they choose some explanation like “addressing the problems of static electricity�, knowing that, since the phenomenon of static electricity and its effect is not fully covered by science, nobody will ask them the bill. Now – should I repeat the whole stuff, or tell you that “maybe the quantum interactions affect jitter�?

FOWLSOUND: For a moment I thought that since you were showing the will to do some scientific research, there could be some hope for mutual compromise and even cooperation, like bringing a treated cd to a test. How wrong was I! I must certainly return to school for some logic classes!

ANDYCAL: Although the leader of homeopathy worldwide is the Greek Mr Vythoulkas, I am not in it, even since (or just because of…), I may have to do an operation for a right hand paralysis soon.
I had a friend in the army though, that was badly suffering from allergy in spring (from pollen) and, since the proper medical science was unable to help him, he went to a doctor of homeopathy and was cured. Since there is no explanation for pollen allergy though, you can still claim that it was all in his mind.

Trainman

[Ducky]

FOWLSOUND: For a moment I thought that since you were showing the will to do some scientific research, there could be some hope for mutual compromise and even cooperation, like bringing a treated cd to a test. How wrong was I! I must certainly return to school for some logic classes!


Well if you read back, I was informed that my proposed test had already been done and the results were as I had imagined - there was no alteration of the CD data whatsoever. Is there some need you have to be proven wrong more than once?

As for your ridiculous demand that the JREF make their own tweak and send it in, what is the point of this? We are examining the claims of Golden Audio about their product. You are endorsing their claims. Why is it then our responsibility to create a new product? Stop shifting the argument. If you have supporting evidence of this product, not anecdotal testemonials, then post them. If not, then perform the tests we suggested and give us evidence.

Either way, you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Edited to add:

Since there is not one among you to try an audio tweak himself, even free of charge, and since the only thing that matters is how another person would manage to carry a test, I will give you a chance to save your soul.


There is someone here among us that is testing this device. Please refer to LostAngeles' entry for the prize. Since no one else was willing to step up and agree to protocol, she did.

See for yourself. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56117)

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by trainman
words

okay i get it you are insane way to go brah

[Paulhoff]

LFTKBS

Around Phoenix, Arizona.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ohms]

Originally posted by trainman
<snip> the only thing that’s left for me at the moment, is to tell you what I would do in your place. <snip>

And if I were in your place (specifically re the GSIC chip) I would put my money where my mouth is and apply for the challenge.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You say the GSIC chip (and other audio tweaks) work. Well, give us some evidence. Until you do, you won't be taken seriously.

[jimlintott]

I've been reading this thread with great interest and actually have a couple of questions.

First a comment. I sell audio equipment and have noticed that people are extremely prone to suggestion when auditioning audio equipment. They will hear almost anything you tell them they are hearing. I can see how the power of suggestion could sway people into believing in 'audio tweaks'. For this reason I avoid making comments that may sway a customer and leave them to decide. (Unless I don't like them.)

Question 1) I did some research on jitter and found some very good information and I want to make sure I understand it. It seems from what I read that jitter only occurs when there is a difference in clock rates from a source and a decoder. Is this clock rate the same as sampling rate? Would this really be non-existant in a modern CD/DVD player as this is a very mature technology?

Question 2) Why would we rely on human ears to test devices? It would seem to me that there is equipment that is much more reliable than the human ear.

Thanks in advance.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I've been reading this thread with great interest and actually have a couple of questions.

First a comment. I sell audio equipment and have noticed that people are extremely prone to suggestion when auditioning audio equipment. They will hear almost anything you tell them they are hearing. I can see how the power of suggestion could sway people into believing in 'audio tweaks'. For this reason I avoid making comments that may sway a customer and leave them to decide. (Unless I don't like them.)

Question 1) I did some research on jitter and found some very good information and I want to make sure I understand it. It seems from what I read that jitter only occurs when there is a difference in clock rates from a source and a decoder. Is this clock rate the same as sampling rate? Would this really be non-existant in a modern CD/DVD player as this is a very mature technology?

Question 2) Why would we rely on human ears to test devices? It would seem to me that there is equipment that is much more reliable than the human ear.

Thanks in advance.

I'll address this specifically as it relates to the GSIC chip.

1) To say that a device that in no way changes the source (i.e. the CD) or the programming of the decoder (i.e. the CD player) can correct jitter permanently is showing a complete lack of understanding as to how these things work.

I know you asked a question about jitter and clock rates. The answer is irrelevant to whether this device can change anything whatsoever. It cannot by any known fact of science do so, which is why it is eligible for the JREF prize. It does not change data on the CD, nor does it reprogram the CD player. As for the audio debate around jitter, I will say this: while it is possible to encounter it, even cheap cd players are engineered well enough that if this problem had occured you would audibly hear the problem as skips, pops or other noise and it is probably due to physical damage of the CD or laser lens. If a few bytes are misread in music, the worst thing that can happen is a little fuzz during playback. When data is stored on a CD, however, any data error is catastrophic. Therefore when a CD is burned professionally, it is quality checked for error. If you hear a problem on a professionally produced cd (not CDR or DVDR) it is most likely a problem with either a scratch or the player's poor programming, or cheap components.

2) you are exactly right, hence the need for DBT. human perception is fallable. TO test whether there is a measurable difference is something that has to be done without "judgement" of human perception.

[jimlintott]

Thanks.

From what I read I had pretty much reached the conclusion that jitter really is non-existent on a cd player. It is only a real problem when converting from one clock rate to another or comibining data of two different rates.

That makes it pretty rational to be suspicious of a device that claims to eliminate something that doesn't exist.

My magic rock that keeps tigers away is still working great. ;)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Thanks.

From what I read I had pretty much reached the conclusion that jitter really is non-existent on a cd player. It is only a real problem when converting from one clock rate to another or comibining data of two different rates.

That makes it pretty rational to be suspicious of a device that claims to eliminate something that doesn't exist.

My magic rock that keeps tigers away is still working great. ;)


Do you get alot of tigers in Saskatchewan?:D

[jimlintott]

Do you get alot of tigers in Saskatchewan?

Not anymore.

I'd trade that thing for a magic mosquito rock in a heartbeat.

[Jeff Corey]

Old joke (and book title) told by Alan King.
Over his door, a guy has a sign, "May this house be safe from tigers."
His friend, seeing it for the first time, says, "There aren't any tigers in Great Neck."
"See?"

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Not anymore.

I'd trade that thing for a magic mosquito rock in a heartbeat.

Can't do that. Everyone that had one was eaten by tigers!

Rasmus.

[Paulhoff]

Again, only for you out there that understand, and do not have brain lock. :eek:

It is hard sometimes to beat Douglas Adams. :p

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/douglas.htm

If a person is religious, I think you already are going to lose the argument against PSI. If they believe in a God, angels, the devil, all that is written in the Bible, how are you going to win with PSI. You have a much better chance of standing on your head and moving the earth with your arms. :bricks:

This type of thinking is too entrenched into most people’s thinking. When you have to make you logic work so religion makes sense, all you logic is going to be really non-logical and flawed. :o

If you saw the movie “Defending Your Life�, then you will understand when the lawyer said, “You don’t want to have a big brain and live on earth�. :(

Paul

:) :) :)

[pauldmin]

All this audiophile nonsense is a case of "The Emperor's new clothes".

I currently have a hifi setup which I feel has the best quality to price ratio:

Denon DM31 CD player/tuner ( ~ £200 )
Acoustic Energy EVO3 speakers ( ~ £200 secondhand )
Speaker Cable ( £5 )
er.. thats it..

I am extremely happy with the sound and would not wish to delude myself with more expensive toys.

Anything more expensive and I think the law of diminishing returns would apply.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
Now, as for Beethoven, you can listen to Fowlsound and, instead of searching for cd’s, try to find people to burn you some in their laptops. You can save a lot of money and time this way, since “as long as your computer is functioning and you are burning the same image, they are the same� and, since they are bit-to-bit the same, they must have the same qualityI guess you're being sarcastic.

Why do you think the copy will sound worse? Have you heard the difference yourself? Blind?

What if you make a copy of the copy? And then a copy of that? And so on, a thousand times. (All of them bitwise identical, naturally.) Will the sound quality keep going down and down and down? How different can two bitwise-identical CDs sound, in your opinion?

What is the point of digital audio, if digital copies degrade as analog copies do?

[Ducky]

Originally posted by 69dodge
I guess you're being sarcastic.

Why do you think the copy will sound worse? Have you heard the difference yourself? Blind?

What if you make a copy of the copy? And then a copy of that? And so on, a thousand times. (All of them bitwise identical, naturally.) Will the sound quality keep going down and down and down? How different can two bitwise-identical CDs sound, in your opinion?

What is the point of digital audio, if digital copies degrade as analog copies do?

The problem with audiophiles is that like fundies, they have no concept of science or how it is applied to technology.

If they did, there would be no argument about whether DBT's are needed.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by fowlsound
The problem with audiophiles is that like fundies, they have no concept of science or how it is applied to technology.

If they did, there would be no argument about whether DBT's are needed.
I guess they think that it is actually Sound stored on that there CD.
Data is data. I expect that the 1.287E12 I stored to be there, right next to the 2.63E-23 for as long as the CD is physically intact. And if I copy them to another CD, they will be the same.
It's all 1's and 0's

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by trainman
the clock jitter of the a/d conversion is written on the disc though.

I may well be wrong here, since I only had a brief look at the subject.

It is my understanding, that the data on a music CD does not carry a time-stamp; much like a regular vinyl record. So if the recording-device is badly timed it is possible for the recording to be out of sync.

It is not possible, though, to determine from the recorded sound how it should sound had there not been any mistakes. A wrongly timed silence of 2 seconds might well be 2.1 seconds long - even thought I would expect the mistakes to be much smaller than this - but there is just no way to know how long it should have been when its recorded duration is 2 seconds.

It is therefore not possible to correct this type of error, much less to do so automatically.

Also, correcting this impossible-to-correct mistake would mean that a gadget that sells for less than 50 bucks could enhance a more or less ordinary CD-player to a degree that it would function better and more reliable than the equipment used by professional studios. I find that idea a little odd, to be honest.

If I was telling you that I have done a DBT myself at home, would you all believe me?


No. I would not believe you. At least, I would not believe you without further explanation. Until now, you have shown that you do not understand how a double blind test works, why they are used and what kinds of problem they avoid.

Also, you have shown that your understanding of CDs recording and playback is no better than mine at best.

For me to believe that you have conducted such a test, you would need to go into quite some detail about what precisely you did and what the exact results were.

If you did that, and if you passed the test I would still expect that there has been some mistake in the setup or that you were just lucky when you decided which CDs were treated and which weren't.

I am here in order to write all those beautiful things that I have written till now, to meet at least one interesting person, to show that not every thing is black and white, to suggest to you to trust (and doubt) your own experiences.

I do trust my own experiences. In my experience, a CD that contains identical data as another CD will sound just the same if played on the same system. In my experience, CD-players cannot be reprogrammed by placing a magic chip on top of the player.

You seem to doubt that this is so.

If you do not wish to, why should I bother personally?

Because I - and I suspect this also holds true for bronzedog - do believe that the chip cannot and does not work. If I was to test it, I wouldn't hear a difference. This wouldn't prove anything, though. I might be lying to uphold the view that the device does not work. I could be deceiving myself. Maybe my hearing just isn't good enough to notice any difference in the quality of the sound. Maybe, just maybe, the chip just doesn't work.

You, however, could not imagine the differences to be there if you were able to tell if the chip was used or not (with an accuracy that's higher than mere chance.) And since you are setting out to prove that the device works, there would be no reason for you to lie, either. (See why I would doubt that you had conducted a test if you were to make such a claim?)

And what have YOU all to do with the Randi’s DBT and 1 million dollar challenge? Are you going to pay me personally, Bronzedog?

Ad hominem. What interest anyone has in this discussion has nothing to do with the validity of the proposed arguments.

My reasons for joining the discussion: I enjoy being right. I think you are mistaken about the effects of the chip.

This is not a sophistry of my part: I have already stated my opinion that the DBT is not the alpha and omega of proof, but in order to have a final acceptance of its effect someone should take the challenge.

No, it is not the alpha and omega. But for some tests, it is a necessary element to avoid bias, deception and self-deception to skew the results.

One cannot prove a negative. Your failing to pass a proper test would just prove that you, specifically, couldn't hear a difference. Might just be your ears, or a CD that was perfect from the start.

A non-believer taking the test would hardly make much more sense than a deaf person attempting to spot the difference. Unless, of course, the sceptic would spot the difference. I wouldn't take the challenge, though, because I think it is absolutely impossible for the chip to work. (Also, I guess my ears really wouldn't be good enough ...)

I have told you that there are many phenomenons in audio and music that cannot be explained and the makers are afraid to confess it, or they choose some explanation like “addressing the problems of static electricity�, knowing that, since the phenomenon of static electricity and its effect is not fully covered by science, nobody will ask them the bill.

Are those phenomenons proven to exist at all?

Also, are they of a nature that would make people claim that they are impossible to ever occur?

Rasmus.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by rwguinn
I guess they think that it is actually Sound stored on that there CD.
Data is data. I expect that the 1.287E12 I stored to be there, right next to the 2.63E-23 for as long as the CD is physically intact. And if I copy them to another CD, they will be the same.
It's all 1's and 0's

Very true, and yet this fundamental fact is what obviously invalidates the idea that treating a cd with anything is going to improve sound (unless you're repairing scratches, which is a dubious and often futile action to be taking anyway.)

This chip can't reprogram the converters in the CD player, because it in no way alters the programming or even physically changes the circuits/flash memory.

So if they're having such a problem with their CD players being of poor engineering, quit buying cheap equipment, spend the extra hundred bucks and buy a studio grade unit.

[Bronze Dog]

Man, this guy's quite silly. We might not believe him if he conducts his DBT and passes, but if he does, he should have no problem collecting the million. What we believe or don't believe won't affect the test results. The fact that he doesn't conduct a DBT tells us that he's afraid of being proven wrong.

And just to say it outright, I don't think the chip can work. Unless the manufacturers invented magic when we weren't looking, it can't change the data on a CD. Even if it could, it can't change the way the CD player reads the disc.

If the magic chip worked, CD manufacturers would be using them and selling treated CDs.

[Paulhoff]

This so-called “intelligent chip� is as good as those so-called antennas for your cell-phone that where put under the battery. The batteries outside being metal would in the first place shield the antenna, second the antenna is not connects to the receivers input. I am glad not to see that commercial any more but there is always another BS one to take it’s place. :(


Trainman, If you are going to quote me, quote the full sentence.
“Trainman I am done with you until you are no longer self-delusional.� :teacher:

The “intelligent chip� also brings to mind the laying of hands onto the patient, and fixing the illness. :rolleyes:

The ‘intelligent chip� does serve one propose, it separates the intelligent from the not so bright. :cs:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
The ‘intelligent chip� does serve one propose, it separates the intelligent from the not so bright. :cs:
You forgot an important second stage of that purpose: Parting those non-so-brights from their money.

[trainman]

Dear Interlocutors

Welcoming the new kids on the block, I have to remind you, that our conversation (at least, in the way I put it in the beginning) has to do with the audio tweaks and the double blind test. The question of jitter came later (along with the Golden Sound's explanation) and, although it is not irrelevant with our discussion, is not the main subject.

I have to add some final notes on this matter though: My main source of information about jitter comes from the specialized audio press, and by people that in no way appreciate my tweaks - one of them, indeed, the editor of Hi-Fi News Paul Miller and ahead of Miller Audio Research (http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/index.html), proved to be an enemy of them, exposing technically the electret sticks of the master of paranormal audio, mr. Peter Belt. It is unanimously acceptable that jitter (caused mainly by the conversion clocks and the power supplies), not only affects the sound, but actually is responsible for the harsh sound of the early cd’s and cd players, when the audio community unanimously accepted the dogma “bits are bits�, that Fowlsound defends here.

I am certainly not the person to defend the new (at least seven years old) conception against the older one. If someone needs literature, articles, he may address to the proper sources – the net is full of articles – I know my limits and won’t carry a debate with Fowlsound on the matter. What I wouldn’t care about though, is someone to prove that the two cd’s (the tweaked one and the reference) are bit-to-bit identical. In any case I have to accept and confess for the n-th (and I hope the last) time, that there is no evidence that the GSIC may improve the stored data in a cd and, since the manufacturer or the praising journalists, give no evidence about it, the case remains open.

In some following posts, I may try to show some of the accepted (or semi-accepted) tweaks that are used by proper firms – it could be interesting for many of you.

Trainman

[trainman]

FOWLSOUND: My ridiculous demand, answers to your cowardly behavior, to slander and mock people telling them that they are fooling themselves and are fooled by others. So, I call you: Onward reason’s soldiers! Since you only care about the attitudes of third persons, and deny checking the sound yourselves, go and find them and expose them. Make your own non-existent tweak and see if they will get fooled by it.

OHMS: I don’t need your taking me seriously Ohms.

JIMLINTOTT: Glad to see your post. I wish you had your shop in Greece, where most (if not all) of the sellers push insistently the customers to buy what they want. Now – to our conversation: It is true that the beginners in audio, believe what they are told, or what is written in the press reviews (which is many times contradictory). And you say: “Don’t listen to them – judge by yourself�. Is there anything more plane and sane than this?

As for your second question though, I would ask: What do you mean by “test devices�? Testing their sound quality, their interpretive view (actually, the one of the designer), or their technical characteristics? If the latter, of course no one could claim to judge by ear – if the former though, would you buy equipment, just because it “measures better�? Valve amplifiers have their aficionados, even they continue to have (well, most of them) extremely high distortion figures!

PAULDMIN: When I was a student I had to listen to music through a crap lp-amp-radio of the infamous BENYTONE firm. I wasn’t happy at all with the fidelity of it, but for sure, what counted most, was finding and buying lp’s. To a youngster, music counts more than the fidelity of the sound. Unfortunately (for the pocket) things change by time…

69DODGE: I was sarcastic and I repeat my sarcasm: Find someone to burn you a cd-r in his laptop, especially from a cd-r, sit down and enjoy with your eyes wide open.

RASMUS: You say: “I do trust my own experiences. In my experience, a CD that contains identical data as another CD will sound just the same if played on the same system. In my experience, CD-players cannot be reprogrammed by placing a magic chip on top of the player�. It is obvious that you confuse “experience� with “belief�. Otherwise, you tell me which your experiences are.

Why don’t you trust your ears? What’s wrong with them? How do you listen to your music? Reading the 0’s and 1’s?

BRONZEDOG: Yes, I am quite silly. The fact that I don’t conduct a DBT tells you I am afraid of being proven wrong. If I was a clever man, I would not be afraid of being proven wrong, or I would be afraid, but I would conduct a DBT anyhow. I am sure that you follow the same canon in your life.

[Gr8wight]

Trainman, let me ask you a question.

Let's hypothesize a listening test of the efficacy of the GSIC. For our purposes, this will be a non-blind, subjective listening test, much as you have done yourself, to evaluate the GSIC's effect on CDs. Only in this test, you are accompanied by a second person who listens at the same time as you.

In preparation, the two of you do a significant number of A/B listening tests where you compare different recordings, different CD players, different amplifiers, different cables, different speakers, etc. In all cases your observations match those of this second person almost exactly. You conclude that your two sets of ears, and your powers of observation are as close to being identical as is subjectively measurable.

The two of you do a series of A/B comparisons of a non-GSIC-treated CD and a GSIC-treated CD. You conclude that the treated CD sounds considerably better. The second person concludes that there was absolutely no difference between the two recordings.

Who's right?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
RASMUS: You say: “I do trust my own experiences. In my experience, a CD that contains identical data as another CD will sound just the same if played on the same system. In my experience, CD-players cannot be reprogrammed by placing a magic chip on top of the player�. It is obvious that you confuse “experience� with “belief�. Otherwise, you tell me which your experiences are.

Why don’t you trust your ears? What’s wrong with them? How do you listen to your music? Reading the 0’s and 1’s?
Well the point here is that some of us buy things on the basis of whether those things actually work or not.
But apparently you are prepared to buy things on the basis of advertising. Well that's your right entirely of course.

I guess there are two types of people in the world.

If there is a product and it doesn't actually do what it claims to do, but you can convince yourself that it does, then one type of person will be happy to buy this product, and the other type won't.

The first type will be happy because they think they hear a difference even if there isn't really one.
The second type will be happy because they are getting the same audio quality as the first group, but for free.


By the way trainman I have a magic 5 pence piece in my pocket that makes music sound nicer if you leave it on the floor near the stereo. Would you like to buy it? It's only $100.
There's no evidence that it actually does improve the sound, and since I or any journalists haven't got any evidence for it the case remains open.
C'mon, that's gotta be worth $100, hasn't it?

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by trainman
You say: “I do trust my own experiences. In my experience, a CD that contains identical data as another CD will sound just the same if played on the same system. In my experience, CD-players cannot be reprogrammed by placing a magic chip on top of the player�. It is obvious that you confuse “experience� with “belief�. Otherwise, you tell me which your experiences are.

I just did tell you what my experiences are. Listening to different CDs that were copies from each other - and I have no reason to believe that they were faulty copies - I did not hear a difference between the two.

Also, all my other experience with digital data shows that identical data will be presented without any difference.

I take it programming is yet another field that you know very little about? I fail to understand how else one could think that the programming of any device could be changed just by placing a generic chip near the device. (Try updating your computer's BIOS once and you'll know what i am talking about.)

Why don’t you trust your ears? What’s wrong with them? How do you listen to your music? Reading the 0’s and 1’s?

Because I don't have excellent hearing. I do not hear differences in sound that others can detect by listening to the same sound.

I do not understand your second question - it appears to be rather immaterial to the issue at hand.

Yes, I am quite silly. The fact that I don’t conduct a DBT tells you I am afraid of being proven wrong. If I was a clever man, I would not be afraid of being proven wrong, or I would be afraid, but I would conduct a DBT anyhow. I am sure that you follow the same canon in your life.

Well, why don't you run a DBT?

It's simple, and it barely takes any more effort on your part than listening to some music.

AND you could make a quick and easy million bucks!

AND you could spend the rest of your live bragging about how you showed all of us how utterly mistaken we were, too!

You have been informed that it would not be required for you to travel to be tested.

No big investments would be required for the test, either. (and judging from other threads on the topic you might be lucky and find some people that are willing to even support you, too!)

Did I mention the million dollars yet?

So, why won't you test yourself? Inquiring minds want to know!

Rasmus.

[alfaniner]

AND, just a reminder that a single trial is not a valid double-blind test. Even if you don't hear a difference, you'd have a 50% chance of guessing right.

Do at least five. Passing 11 or 12 would get you a million bucks.

But I forgot for a moment. Guys like these never test themselves.

[Paulhoff]

Some people just love to be the center of attention, no matter how they get it. :j2:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by trainman
FOWLSOUND: My ridiculous demand, answers to your cowardly behavior, to slander and mock people telling them that they are fooling themselves and are fooled by others. So, I call you: Onward reason’s soldiers! Since you only care about the attitudes of third persons, and deny checking the sound yourselves, go and find them and expose them. Make your own non-existent tweak and see if they will get fooled by it.




Again with this completely ridiculous argument. You are now just being insulting and obnoxious. Provide one piece of evidence I have been cowardly about anything.I am certainly not the person to defend the new (at least seven years old) conception against the older one. If someone needs literature, articles, he may address to the proper sources – the net is full of articles – I know my limits and won’t carry a debate with Fowlsound on the matter. What I wouldn’t care about though, is someone to prove that the two cd’s (the tweaked one and the reference) are bit-to-bit identical. In any case I have to accept and confess for the n-th (and I hope the last) time, that there is no evidence that the GSIC may improve the stored data in a cd and, since the manufacturer or the praising journalists, give no evidence about it, the case remains open.


So now you admit you have no evidence, nor does the manufacturer provide any. what a surprise.

Yet you won't do any tests to provide any and result to ad hom attacks and strawman arguments. Though you can quote about jitter alot. Thanks for showing us what we already know. It goes nowhere to prove your case.


What a surprise that someone comes here to argue their case and when refuted resorts to insults and irrelevant arguments.


I've never seen *that* before.:rolleyes:


:tr:

[Paulhoff]

You think? ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll :jedi:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Bronze Dog]

BRONZEDOG: Yes, I am quite silly. The fact that I don’t conduct a DBT tells you I am afraid of being proven wrong. If I was a clever man, I would not be afraid of being proven wrong, or I would be afraid, but I would conduct a DBT anyhow. I am sure that you follow the same canon in your life.
I don't blind every test I run, but if someone was willing to give me a million dollars for, say, being able to blindly tell the difference between coke and splenda diet coke, you bet I'd log off right now and conduct such a test. Heck, I might do it on a dare.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I don't blind every test I run, but if someone was willing to give me a million dollars for, say, being able to blindly tell the difference between coke and splenda diet coke, you bet I'd log off right now and conduct such a test. Heck, I might do it on a dare.



Heck, *I* dare ya to DBT to see if you can tell the difference between coke and splenda diet coke.

Why not? Whatever happened to the blind taste tests of the 80's?

[jimlintott]

The reason I don't think that a double blind listening test should be used here is that a listening test is subjective.

Take the CD set the system and play it back while recording with a high quality microphone. Treat the CD and repeat. The resulting recordings will be identical or not. If a device can make a difference it should be quantifiable with test equipment. Subjective listening tests don't cut it for me.

Paradigm, the speaker company, feels that off axis response is very important in today's home theatre set ups. They have a huge anechoic chamber to test speakers. They don't have people walk around and say what they think, they use sensitive test equipment to generate hard data.

I'm a little confused about the GSIC chip though. I thought it treated the CD. If it treats the equipment shouldn't I put it on my amplifier as my CD, er DVD, player is hooked up with a digital connection. I rely on my amps far superior DSP systems to do the work. Will the GSIC chip improve the sound of my DVD Audio discs?

I'm probably wrong but I thought the poor sound of many early CDs was due to the rush to get many old titles out that they were mastered with equalisation curves more suited to vinyl or tape. Can anyone shed more light on this?

[Paulhoff]

“I'm probably wrong but I thought the poor sound of many early CDs was due to the rush to get many old titles out that they were mastered with equalization curves more suited to vinyl or tape. Can anyone shed more light on this?�

I heard that this did happen.

The GSIC chip is pure BS, nothing else to say about it. Nothing is there to really test, just snake-oil. It would be better to count the angles on the head of a pin.


Paul

:) :) :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by jimlintott
The reason I don't think that a double blind listening test should be used here is that a listening test is subjective.

Take the CD set the system and play it back while recording with a high quality microphone. Treat the CD and repeat. The resulting recordings will be identical or not. If a device can make a difference it should be quantifiable with test equipment. Subjective listening tests don't cut it for me.

Paradigm, the speaker company, feels that off axis response is very important in today's home theatre set ups. They have a huge anechoic chamber to test speakers. They don't have people walk around and say what they think, they use sensitive test equipment to generate hard data.

I'm a little confused about the GSIC chip though. I thought it treated the CD. If it treats the equipment shouldn't I put it on my amplifier as my CD, er DVD, player is hooked up with a digital connection. I rely on my amps far superior DSP systems to do the work. Will the GSIC chip improve the sound of my DVD Audio discs?

I'm probably wrong but I thought the poor sound of many early CDs was due to the rush to get many old titles out that they were mastered with equalisation curves more suited to vinyl or tape. Can anyone shed more light on this?


You are absolutely right about test equipment. Paradigm shows they are a very responsible company testing for real results.

The chip doesn't treat anything. Not the CD, not the player. There is no "treatment."

It's a load of BS. Nothing more I can say about that.



Edited to correct moronic spelling mistakes.

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by jimlintott
The reason I don't think that a double blind listening test should be used here is that a listening test is subjective.

Very true.

Everyone is so convinced that the chip cannot work, that it is not actually about whether there is a measurable difference in sound.

It is so impossible for the chip to work, that any ability to hear if it is being used will be counted as paranormal.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that proper tests with precise electronic equipment have been performed and that the results suggest the chip can be used as a conversational piece at best - if that is the kind of conversation you would enjoy.

The chip doesn't really matter as far as the challenge is concerned. Were you able to tell whether a ripe banana has been placed on your stereo simply by listening to a particular CD, you would also be entitled to the million dollars.

(why does nobody ever seem to have useless paranormal abilities, btw? They are always things that I would just love to be able to do. Well, except maybe the growing of hands. Even diverting the heat of a candle appears to be useful or could easily be developed into something useful or at least something cool and impressive.)

Take the CD set the system and play it back while recording with a high quality microphone. Treat the CD and repeat. The resulting recordings will be identical or not. If a device can make a difference it should be quantifiable with test equipment. Subjective listening tests don't cut it for me.

Yes, this would by far be the simplest solution. If the chip could possibly alter the sound in any way, that is ...

Rasmus.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Rasmus
Very true.

Everyone is so convinced that the chip cannot work, that it is not actually about whether there is a measurable difference in sound.

It is so impossible for the chip to work, that any ability to hear if it is being used will be counted as paranormal.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that proper tests with precise electronic equipment have been performed and that the results suggest the chip can be used as a conversational piece at best - if that is the kind of conversation you would enjoy.

The chip doesn't really matter as far as the challenge is concerned. Were you able to tell whether a ripe banana has been placed on your stereo simply by listening to a particular CD, you would also be entitled to the million dollars.

(why does nobody ever seem to have useless paranormal abilities, btw? They are always things that I would just love to be able to do. Well, except maybe the growing of hands. Even diverting the heat of a candle appears to be useful or could easily be developed into something useful or at least something cool and impressive.)



Yes, this would by far be the simplest solution. If the chip could possibly alter the sound in any way, that is ...

Rasmus.


How do I nominate that for a language award? You politely, and directly, said everything we have been trying to get trainman to see (though I doubt he will.)

Bravo.:)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by fowlsound
How do I nominate that for a language award? Try going here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60471).

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by fowlsound
You politely, and directly, said everything we have been trying to get trainman to see (though I doubt he will.)

Bravo.:)

Thank you.

Even though it did help that I wasn't talking directly to trainman but jimlintott. I gave him the benefit on the doubt and assumed that he might be able to follow a reasonable argument.

Rasmus,
back to placing fruit on various household appliances.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
Why don’t you trust your ears? What’s wrong with them?They sometimes hear differences where none exist.

Do you think it absolutely impossible that if someone listens to a CD today, it might sound different to him than when he listened to it yesterday, even though it is exactly the same CD?

[steenkh]

Originally posted by trainman
It is unanimously acceptable that jitter (caused mainly by the conversion clocks and the power supplies), not only affects the sound, but actually is responsible for the harsh sound of the early cd’s and cd players, when the audio community unanimously accepted the dogma “bits are bits�, that Fowlsound defends here.


There is no reason why jitter or other factors should not affect the sound, and noone here denies it. These could affect the process that creates the bits for the CD - and this CD will be tainted forever, or it could affect the CD player, in which case you can get a better player and get better sound out of the same CD. The bits on the CD is the only sound information on the CD, and there is nothing GSIC can do about it, because the bits makes out the only information that the player is reading. Hence, no treatment of the CD that does not change the bits - or the reading of the bits, like for instance, cleaning the CD, will ever be able to improve the sound in any way.

“Don’t listen to them – judge by yourself�. Is there anything more plane and sane than his?

Actually, it is not as sane as it sounds. People can be convinced of many things that are not true, and although you might think you can hear a difference between GSIC-treated CDs and non-GSIC-treated CDs, this does not mean that you can actually hear any difference. Try asking somebody about two identical CDs where you start by saying "I think these two are identical, wouldn't you agree?, and then try an example where you start by saying "Can you hear the subtle difference between these two CDs?". The expectation can make people hear what is not there.

Now that I know that you are not strong in physics, I could tell you that a strong magnet realigns the potential vibrational pattern and ruins the GSIC-treatment. GSIC-treated CDs will actually sound worse after being put close to a magnet of more than 14 dps/inch. Would you dare to do test it?

[Paulhoff]

Here is so more BS, the year is now 5 not 2005 as you all thought.

http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/product.html


Paul

:) :) :)

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
... It would be better to count the angles on the head of a pin.


Paul

:) :) :)

Well, maybe you couldn't count the angles, but you could count the arcs. :D

[jmercer]

Gee, I had no idea that there were so many people entertained by playing with trolls! :D

[trainman]

Dear friends

The new stream of posts brought some really fresh air in our magic bus. Of them, I have to single out Gr8wight’s one, not only for his gentle manners and respect that shows to me (at least for the present, but also for opening a forbidden door.

So, let me answer to him “publicly�.

Gr8wight

Excluding the obvious self-preserving reply, that such a question is purely “academic�, that “it hasn’t occurred to me� and the rest…

...I will answer to you with a question:

If all that you describe is the same, and the man that seems to hear a difference using the GSIC, passes a double blind test, then, who of them would be right?

Please Gr8wight; do believe me that my answer is not a sophistry, neither have I done it just to escape your question. It is only, that my decision is to give you this answer now, so you could think seriously upon it – you and every other friend who is really interested in this weirdness.

If you insist though, I shall give you a whole and proper answer. It would be bigger though, and would probably overthrow my plan of presenting some tweaks that other listeners ask me whether they really exist etc. etc.

Yours sincerely

Trainman

[trainman]

ASHLES: You can’t fool me Ash(l)es, for I know you. If you have the guts for a real farce, forget your anonymity and do what I proposed you to do, two posts ago. You won’t dare, since the only thing you have learned and you are able to do, is to post gaffs before your laptop, in the safety of your house.

RASMUS: If you don’t find any differences between cd-r’s and originals, my answer is plane and simple again: “Carry on. It will save you time and money�. Actually, my little brother who listens through a crap “Shure� mini, and has a cd collection full of cd-r’s burned in full speed through a computer, when I told him that he looses fidelity, (offering him to buy another better system) he replied: “I don’t care�. For sure, he must be happier than me!
Some comments of yours, reply mine’s. “The chip doesn't really matter as far as the challenge is concerned. Were you able to tell whether a ripe banana has been placed on your stereo simply by listening to a particular CD, you would also be entitled to the million dollars� – and actually, what was about to be proven, is my abilities and not the chip’s or the bananas’.
As for your question regarding me taking the challenge, is it plane curiosity or what? Hmmmmmm, naughty boy!

FOWLSOUND: What do you mean by “now I admit…� Did I claim otherwise before? I haven’t denied a simple comma through my posts - in contrary with you.
Your posts are full of personal slanders and barks against me, from the very beginning till now. If you insist you have this right, apply it on real people in front of you, proving they deserve it.

JIMLINTOTT: The GSCI does not affect the equipment. Your ideas for tests seem to me pretty hopeful – I hope you’re talking seriously. Is there a way, the Golden Sound’s claims about what exactly the Chip cures (jitter), to be proven right or wrong? Could your friend in Paradigm make some anechoic measurements of two sample cd’s, of those that are used in measurements? Inform us!

BRONZEDOG: You can’t be serious! How can a diet coke have a different taste to the original? This can’t be real! Is it proven? How many scientific tests have you read, that show how aspartame affects the tongue differently?
Oh! I forgot! Those ugly red boxes write “coke�, but actually there is no coke, nor cola inside. Someone must tell mr. Randi!

69DODGE: My friend, you have given the right to your ears to doubt two piano legends such as Askenazy and Koempf on Waldstein, but you cannot even dare to think that you could doubt an ordinary audio engineer speaking on the basis of a quickly developing and readjusting technical trust. Can you explain this truly paranormal phenomenon?

STEENKH: “Just because I am poor in physics, would I believe that a strong magnet etc.� I shall admit I didn’t know that in order to listen to my music, I should own a MD in physics, computer engineering or electro mechanics.
Most of our folk or your traditional jazz musicians were half illiterate people, but have conquered the world - and as for the classical composers, and artists, I doubt if they were even informed about the Newtonian physics.
Unless you want to tell me “properly� that I am naïve, I believe everything that I am told since I do not know physics and computer engineering, and I am not able to judge, neither keep my wallet closed for useless expenses. Well - thanks for your kind interest to save me from ignorance, and in reply, I address you to the JREF Forum team that is preparing itself for the big audio scandal. Your magnet will work wonders I am sure!

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by trainman
If you don’t find any differences between cd-r’s and originals, my answer is plane and simple again: “Carry on. It will save you time and money�.

Your repeated displays of wanton ignorance are beginning to amaze me. There simply cannot be a difference in the sounds produced by one system coming from separate yet identical digital sources. (Unless the physical quality of one source was so bad that the system could not access the information properly.)

It is not that I cannot find a difference, there simply cannot be a difference. If you think I am wrong then please elaborate on why you think so.

Actually, my little brother who listens through a crap “Shure� mini, and has a cd collection full of cd-r’s burned in full speed through a computer, when I told him that he looses fidelity, (offering him to buy another better system) he replied: “I don’t care�. For sure, he must be happier than me!

.... and your point is? That a bad music system produces worse sound than a good system?

And wouldn't your offer to buy a better system be pretty pointless if you honestly believed the bad quality he has to endure are due to the quality of his CDRs?

Some comments of yours, reply mine’s. “The chip doesn't really matter as far as the challenge is concerned. Were you able to tell whether a ripe banana has been placed on your stereo simply by listening to a particular CD, you would also be entitled to the million dollars� – and actually, what was about to be proven, is my abilities and not the chip’s or the bananas’.

True. But unless there was some device, method or person that had the ability to tell whether the chip is used or not, the only valid conclusion is that the chip has no measurable effect on the system.

As for your question regarding me taking the challenge, is it plane curiosity or what? Hmmmmmm, naughty boy!

Yes, I am curious.

I don't think your accounts are entirely truthful. And I am curious as to your excuses for not having to take the challenge.

Funny how I don't notice you answering the question....

Oh, and could you please let me know what your point is? It seems to have gone lost in the discussion.

Do you claim that the chip works?
Do you claim that you are able to somehow detect if a CD or system has been treated with the chip?

Or are you just claiming that because one cannot prove a negative the chip could work, even though its doing so would violate the known laws of the universe?

Or is it just that you think that scientific double blind tests aren't what they are said to be? (then why would you tie this point to the chip though, and not pick something less controversial?)

Rasmus.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by trainman

FOWLSOUND: What do you mean by “now I admit…� Did I claim otherwise before? I haven’t denied a simple comma through my posts - in contrary with you.
Your posts are full of personal slanders and barks against me, from the very beginning till now. If you insist you have this right, apply it on real people in front of you, proving they deserve it.



What did I ever deny? You still haven't answered my question of when I showed cowardly behavior.

trainman, you haven't listened to anything any of the well educated, trained audio professionals here have told you, nor have you listened to any of the thoughtful intelligent people that have pointed out your perceptions can trick you to thinking something is doing something when it is not. You offer no evidence this product works, you offer no explination of why it works. You have not done any double blind tests yourself and refuse to do so because you may be proven wrong (your words.) You repeat definitions of what jitter is but fail to see that those definitions have nothing to do with showing this product does anything to correct it.

In fact, all you have done is go "woo-woo." (shamefully stolen joke from jmercer posted here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60570) )

So one last question:

What is your point here? Obviously it's not to listen or to be educated on cd's and cd players.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by trainman
69DODGE: My friend, you have given the right to your ears to doubt two piano legends such as Askenazy and Koempf on Waldstein, but you cannot even dare to think that you could doubt an ordinary audio engineer speaking on the basis of a quickly developing and readjusting technical trust. Can you explain this truly paranormal phenomenon?I do not understand. How have I doubted Ashkenazy or Kempff? Did they express an opinion on the quality of CD-R copies? Or on the efficacy of the GSIC? Or on the appropriateness of blind testing?

I have a pretty good understanding myself of how CDs and CD players work. I'm not merely trusting any single audio engineer.

I have personal experience of listening to a CD and a copy, and believing I heard a difference, but then being unable to identify them consistenly when I tried it blind. (In that case, the copy was actually a cassette tape I recorded with Dolby S noise reduction.) So I know that what I see can affect what I (think I) hear.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by 69dodge
'm not merely trusting any single audio engineer.



Troll aspects of trainman's activities aside, I would hope no one takes my word as the final say in anything. I would hope people question what they think they hear enough to test it. I am an audio engineer, and my certifacations as such are trade school courses. I have taken it upon myself to learn on my own everything I possibly can about the physics of sound waves and the theories and concepts behind recording mediums and playback technologies, but I don't have accredited paper from a university to back it up. Just my 14 years as a professional musician and sound engineer recording those that hire me. In that time I hope I have learned enough to know ******** in physics when I see it.

Granted if I'm not the "one audio engineer" I'd be very relieved...

But, you are well spoken in your response to trainman. That deserves recognition.


edited to add:

I doubt I am the one sound engineer you are referring to, but just in case, I would have to give those statements.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by trainman
69DODGE: My friend, you have given the right to your ears to doubt two piano legends such as Askenazy and Koempf on Waldstein, No that was me, not 69Dodge. BTW, I went and ordered Brendel's Vox recording of the Waldstein, since the O'Conor seems to be available only as part of the complete set.

Y'know, I'd pay good money - not a million dollars, certainly, which I don't have - but, say ten bucks, anyway, to a GSIC-believer who would do a double blind test, period, even if he ended up reporting back that he couldn't tell the difference.

But all I see (or hear?) is sound and fury impugning motives, explaining why a DBT wouldn't work or why it's not adviseable in this particular circumstance, and more, all signifying nothing.

Maybe someone could set up a PayPal account to put together a fund that will pay any GSIC believer whatever's in the account, just to do the goddam DBT, no matter what the results.

Just thinking out loud.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
ASHLES: You can’t fool me Ash(l)es, for I know you. If you have the guts for a real farce, forget your anonymity and do what I proposed you to do, two posts ago. You won’t dare, since the only thing you have learned and you are able to do, is to post gaffs before your laptop, in the safety of your house.
Hee hee you are a funny little man.

I'm not sure what the 'Ash(l)es' is all about. Maybe it was a rather poor attempt to guess my name or something. It's hard to tell.

And thank you for lecturing us all on anonymity 'trainman'.
Fancy applying for the JREF million? No? What a shock.

And I have no intention of trying your test any more than I intend to try the test with banana as suggested above. The day this chip passes any actual real tests is the day I might have some interest in it. Until then it is merely a fine example of what the gullible will buy.
And hopw hard people like yourself work to avoid any actual trsting.

And with regard to your last guess about me... I post from work.

I guess you won't be applying for the JREF challenge for your psychic abilities either.

[jimlintott]

Sorry I don't have any friends at Paradigm, I only sell their products along with others. My point in the example is that real audio companies use sensitive test equipment not subjective listening tests for much of their research and developement. Certainly listening tests are used as well.

If the chip was tested in this fashion I see a couple of possible outcomes. First, there is no detectable difference as the chip does nothing. This would mean that people who claim to hear a difference are simply deluded. Second, the chip actually does make a difference that is detectable. Whether it can be explained or not. However this would mean that hearing the difference would not be paranormal.

Knowing what I know about audio equipment and theory I am inclined to believe that the first situation would result. I am a skeptic after all.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by jimlintott
If the chip was tested in this fashion I see a couple of possible outcomes. First, there is no detectable difference as the chip does nothing. This would mean that people who claim to hear a difference are simply deluded. Second, the chip actually does make a difference that is detectable. Whether it can be explained or not. However this would mean that hearing the difference would not be paranormal.That's correct, but in the second case, there would still be a paranormal event worthy of winning the million bucks - the fact that the thing even worked would be a paranormal event.

I don't have to be Bigfoot to win the million; all I have to do is prove he exists.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's correct, but in the second case, there would still be a paranormal event worthy of winning the million bucks - the fact that the thing even worked would be a paranormal event.

I don't have to be Bigfoot to win the million; all I have to do is prove he exists.

Not necessarily. (http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#2.3) Although they are known to make exceptions at times. If you had overwhelmingly compelling evidence or were likely committing a huge public fraud, they might test your claim of having found Bigfoot. But don't consider it likely.

[trainman]

Dear co-thinkers

Running to our third (?!) week together, I shall make some shift of strategy. Many of your comments may not be answered, especially those that have already been answered before – even though I understand that nobody entering a topic that has already covered 4 pages, has the patience to read all the previous stuff.

There is also a need to be through with the case of digital transfers, jitter and the rest. Just because I thought that the possible differences between cd-r’s and originals were a commonplace, I let this discussion grow like a mushroom - with some people demanding to explain to them how that could be possible, others testing my knowledge in physics etc. I explained that I am not here to compete with the audio engineers, since my approach is, from my very first post, not a technical one, but a sound perception one.

It seems now, that my explanation (like other confessions of mine) was regarded as a show of weakness or inconsideration. I am obliged so, to refer everyone from now and on, to the article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?� (http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18) which is a part of a very interesting page made of a software engineer. Everyone that has, like Rasmus, been amazed with my “repeated displays of wanton ignorance�, or simply wants to wage a battle against the “ridiculous claims� that a digital bit-to bit copy can sound different to the original, has now a glorious opportunity to expose, not the nothingness of Trainman, but the pseudo-knowledge of a scientist. Others, like 69DODGE, will find in the article “The Numericaly-Identical cd mystery: A study in perception versus measurements� (a reference of which is included in the article above) many thinks that resemble to their experiences.

There will be no follow-ups, no question-answers and no replies to further provocations over this topic – just my monotonous and boring referring this article.

Our future discussions will be on sound perception grounds, without excluding of course technical knowledge. That means that the participation of people with technical knowledge in the discussion will be essential.

Everyone is called to take a breath, and even more, the ones who still don’t understand my position. After the breath, let them read again carefully my very first post. This is my ideological and empirical manifesto. This is where I stand, while you stand on the ground of the double blind test. Between the two grounds there is a bridge. I have tried since now, to make conciliation in the middle of the bridge: To persuade you to try the product, or investigate yourself the results of its use (if the effect of the chip is permanent on the disc, then it should be obvious to its copy, too), but in vain. Nobody agrees to cross the bridge. What will I do next?

Trainman

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
Our future discussions will be on sound perception grounds, without excluding of course technical knowledge.Fair enough, but how are you going to know whether your perception of the sound is being effected by psychological factors without blind testing?

[trainman]

FOWLSOUND: My friend, it seems to me that you are getting offended easily, but you are not so careful to what you write, and what I write. Since you have still not understood what I mean by “cowardness�, in your case I recall the characterization. When I wrote about “an audio engineer� I didn’t mean necessarily you – I meant all your colleagues (including you) that are hooked on their technical trust, forgetting that knowledge is involving. As for the rest, yes, I am not removed by the “well educated and thoughtful intelligent people� in this page, but it is an exaggeration to write that I don’t listen to them. Otherwise, you must confess that no one listens to me, too!

I hope you won’t give up your battle so early, so you will be with us the next round – although I am a bit afraid that we won’t be many.

BPSCG and 69DODGE: Sorry I confused your “digital� names.

BPSCG: You are willing to pay 10 bucks to see someone taking the challenge, but you don’t seem available to make some DBTs with the chip in the safety of your home. At least, have you bought pop corn and cola for the feast?

RASMUS: I mean that if someone is pretty satisfied with his system, I wouldn’t bother to press him change his mind. And if someone finds that a cd-r burned in a laptop in 8X speed, has the same quality of sound to the original, he may continue to use it.

Now, as to the challenge: I have not “been informed that it won’t be required to travel�, and you must be kidding when telling me that some people would be ready to support me financially. I have written also about my own personal experiences trying to communicate to someone about the “paranormal� audio, but you didn’t seem to notice. You can take the dilemma “win the (existent or not) 1 million bucks, or loose it all – money, job, etc.� lightly, until it refers to you. And yes, I believe that the “chip� alters the sound perception.

ASH(L)ES: You “guess I won’t be applying for the JREF challenge for my psychic abilities either�. Right again! With so many correct guesses, why don’t you apply for the “One Million Dollars Challenge� instead of collecting 5 pence pieces from the street? Onward “illuminator�!

JIMLINTOTT: It’s a pity that you are not able to help us with a technical comparison of the two discs. As for your last sentence, please let me comment: To be a sceptic, it doesn’t mean that you have necessarily to reject a priori, every phenomenon that doesn’t seem to make a sense. Rather, it means to be able to cheque its existence, and to explain it under the rules of logic, or deny it, again under the same rules.

MOJO: Be patient Mojo...

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
MOJO: Be patient Mojo... How patient do we need to be? You've now had over two weeks to address this issue, having introduced it via your thread title.

[richardm]

Originally posted by trainman
“Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?� (http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18)


Some people have asserted that *any* two CDs, pressed or otherwise, will sound slightly different. Some claim to hear differences in identical CDs from different pressing plants. The former is silly, but the latter has a lot of anecdotal evidence to support it.

I am fully convinced, sign me up for 10 chips immediately.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
...

Everyone is called to take a breath, and even more, the ones who still don’t understand my position. After the breath, let them read again carefully my very first post. This is my ideological and empirical manifesto. This is where I stand, while you stand on the ground of the double blind test. Between the two grounds there is a bridge. I have tried since now, to make conciliation in the middle of the bridge: To persuade you to try the product, or investigate yourself the results of its use (if the effect of the chip is permanent on the disc, then it should be obvious to its copy, too), but in vain. Nobody agrees to cross the bridge. What will I do next?

Trainman

What the hell are you talking about?

Go away.

[Bronze Dog]

Trainman, the proper thing for you to do next is to conduct a DBT. After that, apply for the JREF Prize and win the million. There shouldn't be any problems if the chip works. In the process, you'll get rich, and I'll get in line for my own chips.

The reason I won't buy the chip and try it myself is because I'm unconvinced as to whether it works. It's no different than those magic antennae you stick in your cell phone: There haven't been any successful tests beyond the inherently flawed subjective (read: easily biased) testimonials.

[Paulhoff]

trainman

I will try to make this simple without using thousands of words.

There is a software program that comes with my sound card called Creative Wavestudio. It comes with Creative sound card package.

You can copy any CD track as a wave file to your computer.

Take any track on the CD and copy it to the computer as a wave file.

You can then copy the CD to a CDr, (in America it legal to copy your own CD’s).

Now copy that same track from the copy CDR as a wave file to you computer.

Open both files into the Creative Wavestudio program.

When you open a file it will display the waveform of the music.

You then can take either one of the tracks and inverted the waveforms on both channels.

Then you can copy and paste one waveform onto the other from start to finish.

Since one track's both channels are inverted and when they are both copied (added) together to the other track's both channels you will now have a two flat lines that mean no sound.

Since both are the same exact copies the flat line proves that that were exact copies, I have done this before, no listening is needed.

If there were any difference they would show up, for me they never have.

For you out there who know how to do this, try it, this will settle any self-doubts.


Trainman, if you do not know what I am writing about, maybe some else out there with more patients can explain it to you, not me.

If CDr did not copy correctly, then any programs copy to them would crash all the time, and they don’t. Nothing is more critical about being copied correctly than a program; any instructions not copy correctly will cause the program to crash at some time, period.

The guys who write the stuff you refer to haven’t got a clue. I’ll bet they are vinyl and tube people.

Paul

331 words

:) :) :)

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear friends

The new stream of posts brought some really fresh air in our magic bus. Of them, I have to single out Gr8wight’s one, not only for his gentle manners and respect that shows to me (at least for the present, but also for opening a forbidden door.

So, let me answer to him “publicly�.

Gr8wight

Excluding the obvious self-preserving reply, that such a question is purely “academic�, that “it hasn’t occurred to me� and the rest…

...I will answer to you with a question:

If all that you describe is the same, and the man that seems to hear a difference using the GSIC, passes a double blind test, then, who of them would be right?

Please Gr8wight; do believe me that my answer is not a sophistry, neither have I done it just to escape your question. It is only, that my decision is to give you this answer now, so you could think seriously upon it – you and every other friend who is really interested in this weirdness.

If you insist though, I shall give you a whole and proper answer. It would be bigger though, and would probably overthrow my plan of presenting some tweaks that other listeners ask me whether they really exist etc. etc.

Yours sincerely

Trainman


Dear Trainman,

You have, as I suspected you would, penetrated the deception inherent in my question to you. Right and wrong are, of course, abstract concepts, and neither man can be said to be 'right.' In response to your question, I would say this: if anyone, anywhere, anytime, was to successfully identify GSIC treated CDs from non-treated CDs, at frequency significantly greater than chance would allow, in a properly controlled double blind listening test, then the skeptical community would immediately sit up and take notice. As this has never, to date, happened, your question is meaningless.

You would ask why we harp on the old DBT canard. We would ask why you dismiss it. You and I both know the answer to both of those questions.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
Everyone is called to take a breath, and even more, the ones who still don’t understand my position. After the breath, let them read again carefully my very first post. This is my ideological and empirical manifesto. This is where I stand...Since you've invited us to go back to your first post, I have a couple of comments on it. I didn't post them before as I thought it would be too much like backtracking, but as long as you want to go back there...

Your suggested test protocol: I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?�
Here, you are making assertions that certain things will happen: "...when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent..." What if these things didn't happen? What if they never actually happen, but are merely subjective effects that you think you hear because of your belief that the device improves the sound?

Why not perform a test to actually find out if you can still detect these effects when you're not sure whether or not they're supposed to be happening? To find out if the effects are real or imaginary?

...

As a sidetrack, is it really desirable for "the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record [to] be more apparent?" Back in the heyday of vinyl, people went to great lengths to minimise surface noise. Even since then, there have been people like John R.T. Davies who have made a life's work out of minimising these sort of effects for remastering purposes. [/sidetrack]

...

And what about the question you propose: "Would you still wish to continue?" What is the answer to this question going to tell you? If they say "yes," it may be because they think it sounds better. On the other hand it may be that they can't hear any difference at all and just wish to continue listening to the music. Similarly, if they say "no," it may not be any reflection on the sound quality: It could be that they just don't like your choice of music. Or perhaps they just want to go to the toilet.


Your suggestion that music critics may not actually be able to tell the difference between different performances: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. Some of them could even tell you and compare by thought only, the difference between Rubinstein’s and Horowitz’s Chopin, the differences in the performances of the same artist during the years, the various product values and qualities of the recordings. For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.

These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.

I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test? Whether or not you actually believe that this couldn't be done, the fact that you think it is worth advancing this as a credible analogy to some extent confirms my suspicion that many audiophiles are not really interested in music. No musician produces exactly the same performance twice. There will be differences in nuance and phrasing, even if everything else is identical. there will be detectable musical differences between any two performances. Admittedly, if the performances were very similar, and were recorded in the same room on the same day these differences might be very small, but they will be there. Listening through them a few times should be sufficient for a reasonably skilled musician (or even a critic!) to identify points at which they differ in a distinctive way and to thus be subsequently able to tell which of the two they are listening to in a blinded test.

Edited to add quotation from Flanders and Swann: ... But I never did care for music much, It's the high fidelity!

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by trainman
You are willing to pay 10 bucks to see someone taking the challenge, but you don’t seem available to make some DBTs with the chip in the safety of your home. At least, have you bought pop corn and cola for the feast?


A double blind test cannot remove bas from the test if the testee is convinced that neither the real thing nor the placebo will do the trick.

We are talking about a difference so small, that it apparently cannot be measured objectively.

What is the point of letting someone listen who thinks that they cannot and will not hear a difference?

Do you think the difference is big enough that even a disbeliever could be convinced? Then why not just measure the difference and not bother with failable human ears?

RASMUS: I mean that if someone is pretty satisfied with his system, I wouldn’t bother to press him change his mind.

If you are satisfied with your system, then by all means keep using the current setup. But that is not what any of this is about.

If you think that placing a ripe banana on top of your CD player enhances the sound quality - then by all means continue your indoor composting scheme. But do not for a second expect me to accept that the banana makes any difference whatsoever to the output. Do not expect me to call you anything better than deceived and mistaken. And please do not think that your belief could ever gain a shred of credibility unless you were to have it tested properly.

And if someone finds that a cd-r burned in a laptop in 8X speed, has the same quality of sound to the original, he may continue to use it.

Sure. Only what I or you may or may not believe does not change the facts. And the facts are that bit-identical CDs will not produce different output because of the way a CD player works. Unless we are talking about low quality CD-Writers, low quality CDRs burned at speeds higher than what they are made for and bad stereo systems. A copied CD with many bit-errors may play in a CD-player since most of the data structure on the CD is non-critical to the playing of the CD.

But it has been years now that those errors were common. And if they occurred a Data-CD had to be binned. Hasn't happen to me in ages now.

Now, as to the challenge: I have not “been informed that it won’t be required to travel�

No? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994556#post1870994556)


, and you must be kidding when telling me that some people would be ready to support me financially.

Uh... no. I have seen such offers here in the forums before. This would not amount to a free round trip to the US or anything, but possibly a CD or two of your choice if you were willing to take the challenge.

I have written also about my own personal experiences trying to communicate to someone about the “paranormal� audio, but you didn’t seem to notice.

May have missed it. Or maybe not understood what you were trying to say.

You can take the dilemma “win the (existent or not) 1 million bucks,

s this where you're coming from, then?

or loose it all – money, job, etc.� lightly, until it refers to you.

Why do you think you could lose your money and your job taking this test? Granted, you might lose a bit of money since you would have to pay for the test - but that will hardly let you go bankrupt.

Yes: I am taking that very lightly indeed: If I had a paranormal ability and if I was bragging about it on the Internet anyway and if I had no doubts about having this ability then I would go and take the challenge in a heartbeat.

If I thought that I could possibly benefit more from hiding my ability to the public, then you wouldn't find me here or elsewhere discussing it. You could possibly find me in Vegas, or maybe even hiding from various governments - but I don't see why this should apply here:

You think the chip works? Test it in the privacy of your own home. No need to let anyone else know you are doing this. It works? Fine: Take the challenge! Or negotiate a contract with the producers of the chip and then take the challenge.

All you have is a sincere belief that the chip works, because that is what you think you are heating and a lacking understanding of science, CD players and proper testing procedures? Just going away would be a good move.

And yes, I believe that the “chip� alters the sound perception.

I have a banana on my CD player. Do you think it could possibly alter the sound? Would you believe me if I claimed it really did change the sound?

That is a very sincere question!

Rasmus.

Edited to add link

[jimlintott]

To be a sceptic, it doesn’t mean that you have necessarily to reject a priori, every phenomenon that doesn’t seem to make a sense. Rather, it means to be able to cheque its existence, and to explain it under the rules of logic, or deny it, again under the same rules.

I think you have a tendency to skim people's posts without fully reading them. I did say that with my knowledge of audio technology and theory and I could add digital technology and theory, that I don't believe it works.

The claim is that a thing of some sort by being proximily located near a CD can fundamentally alter the data on the CD. (It has to alter the data, how else can it change the sound.) I don't see how this is technically possible. It is in fact such an outrageous claim that I have no problem rejecting it quite quickly (based, of course, on my technical knowledge of such things).

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jimlintott
The claim is that a thing of some sort by being proximily located near a CD can fundamentally alter the data on the CD. (It has to alter the data, how else can it change the sound.) I don't see how this is technically possible. It is in fact such an outrageous claim that I have no problem rejecting it quite quickly (based, of course, on my technical knowledge of such things). But, of course (TRAINMAN: note this), if such a device were to consistently pass properly blinded tests you would have to reconsider your position.

[Psiload]

I posted the very first reply to trainman in this thread:
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. This is the first time I've checked back since.

Gee, I sure am shocked at the direction this thread took. :nope:

So predictable...

you can just about set your watch by these Golden Chip "audiophiles".

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear co-thinkers
...
It seems now, that my explanation (like other confessions of mine) was regarded as a show of weakness or inconsideration. I am obliged so, to refer everyone from now and on, to the article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?�
...
There will be no follow-ups, no question-answers and no replies to further provocations over this topic – just my monotonous and boring referring this article.
A mere 63 minutes later...
FOWLSOUND: [Personal and professional insults]

BPSCG and 69DODGE: [Name irrelevency]

BPSCG: [Patronising irrelevency]

RASMUS: [Bizarre and incomprehensible new excuses for not taking the challenge]

ASH(L)ES: [More bizarre irrelevency. Strange attempts at insults.]

JIMLINTOTT: [Strange new definition of the word 'sceptic']

MOJO: [Pointless entreaty to wait for something or other (not explained)]
Still, at least he kept his promise of "monotonous and boring".

[Paulhoff]

Here we are beating the hell out of the subject, and going nowhere fast. Arguing with someone about something that in no way exists. We are all wasting our time.

As someone told me, “On you deathbed you are going to wish you had all those breaths you wasted on people who weren’t listening to you in the first place�.

When you talk to someone who is smart, you can teach them, if they are stupid, run away from them as fast as you can, they can not be taught. :(

Paul

:) :) :)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by trainman
BPSCG: You are willing to pay 10 bucks to see someone taking the challenge, but you don’t seem available to make some DBTs with the chip in the safety of your home. At least, have you bought pop corn and cola for the feast?Okay, everyone, I've put my money where trainman's mouth is. Much as the thought of buying snake oil from con artists goes against my grains, I have just ordered a GSIC-10.

When I receive it, I will get two identical CDs of the same piece of music. I will treat one CD and leave the other untreated.

I will mark the two CD's, indicating which is which, and have Mrs. BPSCG insert them into our CD changer.

I will obscure the CD changer's display, and Mrs. BPSCG will play snippets from each CD, in random order that only she knows.

When each snippet is done playing, I will write down on a piece of paper whether I thought the CD that is playing was treated or untreated.

Repeat ten times.

I will then generate another random sequence, and Mrs. BPSCG and I will switch positions and roles.

I will report the results here.

I'm spending $17.80 to do this because trainman refuses to.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, everyone, I've put my money where trainman's mouth is. Much as the thought of buying snake oil from con artists goes against my grains, I have just ordered a GSIC-10.

When I receive it, I will get two identical CDs of the same piece of music. I will treat one CD and leave the other untreated.

I will mark the two CD's, indicating which is which, and have Mrs. BPSCG insert them into our CD changer.

I will obscure the CD changer's display, and Mrs. BPSCG will play snippets from each CD, in random order that only she knows.

When each snippet is done playing, I will write down on a piece of paper whether I thought the CD that is playing was treated or untreated.

Repeat ten times.

I will then generate another random sequence, and Mrs. BPSCG and I will switch positions and roles.

I will report the results here.

I'm spending $17.80 to do this because trainman refuses to.


You do know that LostAngeles is already testing this? The test should be coming up soon...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
Here we are beating the hell out of the subject, and going nowhere fast. Arguing with someone about something that in no way exists. We are all wasting our time.

As someone told me, “On you deathbed you are going to wish you had all those breaths you wasted on people who weren’t listening to you in the first place�.
I don't think it's a waste of time to challenge nonsensical ideas, or threads that misrepresent scientific methodology work.

There are lurkers who might not be sure why trainman's dislike of the Double Blind Test is so intense.

Hopefully now they know why.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, everyone, I've put my money where trainman's mouth is. Much as the thought of buying snake oil from con artists goes against my grains, I have just ordered a GSIC-10.

When I receive it, I will get two identical CDs of the same piece of music. I will treat one CD and leave the other untreated.

I will mark the two CD's, indicating which is which, and have Mrs. BPSCG insert them into our CD changer.

I will obscure the CD changer's display, and Mrs. BPSCG will play snippets from each CD, in random order that only she knows.

When each snippet is done playing, I will write down on a piece of paper whether I thought the CD that is playing was treated or untreated.

Repeat ten times.

I will then generate another random sequence, and Mrs. BPSCG and I will switch positions and roles.

I will report the results here.

I'm spending $17.80 to do this because trainman refuses to.
I hope for the sake of your wallet, they have a money-back guarantee... that they'll honor.

[Paulhoff]

Ashles

I do not have to agree with someone’s point of view to know where he or she is coming from. If they have a good reason for their believes it is fine with me. Good friend will always have other ideas about things but if the augment is good I can put myself in their shoes and understand it but I still not agree with it.

This guy has no good augment; I cannot get into it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
This guy has no good augment; I cannot get into it.
Can't argue with that.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, everyone, I've put my money where trainman's mouth is. Much as the thought of buying snake oil from con artists goes against my grains, I have just ordered a GSIC-10.

When I receive it, I will get two identical CDs of the same piece of music. I will treat one CD and leave the other untreated.

I will mark the two CD's, indicating which is which, and have Mrs. BPSCG insert them into our CD changer.

I will obscure the CD changer's display, and Mrs. BPSCG will play snippets from each CD, in random order that only she knows.

When each snippet is done playing, I will write down on a piece of paper whether I thought the CD that is playing was treated or untreated.

Repeat ten times.

I will then generate another random sequence, and Mrs. BPSCG and I will switch positions and roles.

I will report the results here.

I'm spending $17.80 to do this because trainman refuses to.

I think it would've been cheaper to do the test with the banana...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by fowlsound
You do know that LostAngeles is already testing this? The test should be coming up soon... Yeah, I know - in fact, a good chunk of the protocol was mine.

Frankly, my hearing stinks, but I can hear subtleties of a musical performance that Mrs. BPSCG can't. On the other hand, she has terrific hearing.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Metullus
I think it would've been cheaper to do the test with the banana... And likely just as effective.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by BPSCG
And likely just as effective.
How about if you use an organic banana?

[Paulhoff]

Bananas are OK, green or yellow, but once the brown spots start, it is all down hill. :(

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
Bananas are OK, green or yellow, but once the brown spots start, it is all down hill. :(

Paul

:) :) :)

The brown spots come from the depletion of the quantum dots as the banana gets used up.

While it's all very interesting that someone (or multiple people) who knows is all hookum is willing to test this thing, it'll prove exactly nothing when the results are as expected. I just want one person who believes this thing can work to try to demonstrate their ability to hear a difference in a treated and an untreated disc. And that's the sum total of the purpose of blinding. The subject has to determine whether the treatment worked without knowing if it was done. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by Hitch
The brown spots come from the depletion of the quantum dots as the banana gets used up.

While it's all very interesting that someone (or multiple people) who knows is all hookum is willing to test this thing, it'll prove exactly nothing when the results are as expected. I just want one person who believes this thing can work to try to demonstrate their ability to hear a difference in a treated and an untreated disc. And that's the sum total of the purpose of blinding. The subject has to determine whether the treatment worked without knowing if it was done. I don't know why that's such a hard concept to grasp.
I'm beginning to think that the wellfeds and trainmen of the world do not actually believe the thing works. The impression I get is that they buy the thing because they think it'll work (all the ads say it does, after all); try it out and convince themselves it works; tell all their buddies how great it is; and then, when they really start to think about it, they realize they've been had.

Their education about the mechanics and physics of the process comes too late to save face. Not with us, of course, but with all their audiophile associates too whom they have recommended the device.

The same could be said of our friend(s) Dr. MAS. They are just in too deep to get out gracefully.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Metullus
I'm beginning to think that the wellfeds and trainmen of the world do not actually believe the thing works. The impression I get is that they buy the thing because they think it'll work (all the ads say it does, after all); try it out and convince themselves it works; tell all their buddies how great it is; and then, when they really start to think about it, they realize they've been had.

Their education about the mechanics and physics of the process comes too late to save face. Not with us, of course, but with all their audiophile associates too whom they have recommended the device.

The same could be said of our friend(s) Dr. MAS. They are just in too deep to get out gracefully.


Funny, I always thought the most graceful (and admirable) thing to do is to admit when I'm wrong.

;)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Funny, I always thought the most graceful (and admirable) thing to do is to admit when I'm wrong.

;)

Yeah, well I 'spect we were brought up a little bit different than some, wot?

I also wonder how many of their friends purchased GSICs based on their recommendations? Maybe its just cheaper not to cop to the mistake?

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by Metullus
I'm beginning to think that the wellfeds and trainmen of the world do not actually believe the thing works. The impression I get is that they buy the thing because they think it'll work (all the ads say it does, after all); try it out and convince themselves it works; tell all their buddies how great it is; and then, when they really start to think about it, they realize they've been had.

Their education about the mechanics and physics of the process comes too late to save face. Not with us, of course, but with all their audiophile associates too whom they have recommended the device.

The same could be said of our friend(s) Dr. MAS. They are just in too deep to get out gracefully.

Remember the scene in Huckleberry Finn with the stage show?
Human nature--If'n you git took, make sure you ain't by your lonesome...

[steenkh]

Originally posted by trainman
I am obliged so, to refer everyone from now and on, to the article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?� (http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18) which is a part of a very interesting page made of a software engineer.

Now, that FAQ refers to another document for what interests us: "The Numerically-Identical CD Mystery: A Study in Perception versus Measurement" by Ian Dennis, Julian Dunn, and Doug Carson, submitted to the Audio Engineering Society (Preprint 4339, 101st AES convention) (http://http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf).

Here they actually conduct experiments to see if people can hear a difference between verified, digitally identical discs of different types. It is not clear at all if the experiment is blinded, even though some attempts have been made to ensure it is so. About 50 amateur and professional listeners have tried this out on their own system, and most could hear a difference. However, when people can examine their CD's in an uncontrolled environment, it is not easy to hide which ones are CDROMs and which ones are profesionnal copies made from glass masters, so I think this experiment has not really been blinded. They tried to frame the questions in a way that would conceal the true goal of the test, but they admit that many testers did not supply the answers asked for, but the ones they themselves thought more appropriate.

Accordingly, their first test has been subjected to criticism, and a second test has been designed as a blinded test on professional listeners. They failed miserably, and the conclusion of the document says:
However, the blind tests, whilst as yet too small in number to be conclusive, suggest that differences may actually be too small to be audible, even amongst expert listeners. If so, then other psychological factors must be responsible for the assertions by nearly all listeners tested that they can actually hear a difference.

So, Trainman, why do you think these documents are supportive of your notion that people can hear differences between different digitally identical copies? Of course, if you only read the FAQ that you refers to, you are excused, because that FAQ is framed as if these differences are real, but the document it refers to thinks that the differences are psychological. And the test was not even double blinded!

[trainman]

RICHARDM: There are two types of chips: One is for 10 applications and costs 16$ and the other for 30 applications and costs 40$. Which one do you wish to be signed up for?

BRONZEDOG: Your attitude is respected and understandable Bronzedog. If you want my opinion, Golden Sound should be able to offer its product with the possibility of returning the money, if the customer was not satisfied - although I guess that you would not test it, either.

GR8WIGHT: I am sorry that you find my own question meaningless, for I thought your question meaningful. One word more, though: The proper question in the end of your example, should not be, “who’s right�, but “what should we do next� or, “to what conclusions can we reach?� As it stands, this comment is meaningless too, I agree.

MOJO: I have already stated that, just because the surface noise or the added brightness in an old recording is something “undesirable�, no wishful thinking, “imagination� or self-deception should have altered the sound this way. That’s why I picked up this example for my own protocol.

For many of co-thinkers here, this was irrelevant. Someone told me “you may have not wished to improve the sound – just to alter it�. Why then, other discs have been “improved� and not these recordings? My fault-finders, know nothing more about self deception, than I know about how the chip works.

I have intentionally picked up those examples for my “protocol�. It is obvious that the latter is not made to be a reference experiment to persuade a smaller or larger “community of people�, (like the DBT) but to persuade a single person – a lover of music and lover of good audio. That is a significant difference.

As for your last paragraph, you claim that “listening through them a few times should be sufficient for a reasonably skilled musician (or even a critic!) to identify points at which they differ in a distinctive way and to thus be subsequently able to tell which of the two they are listening to in a blinded test�. Well, I do not disagree in advance, but I haven’t seen this happening. For decades, no DBT was used for testing the abilities of critics or recording engineers, not to mind the people that tune the pianos and are supposed to be able to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings (now they use an electronic device though). But, as Hans the Philosopher put it, “this is irrelevant, since they didn’t claim to do something paranormal�.

RASMUS: For your technical claims about the cd-r’s, you are referred to the article http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18. As for your banana, it would be a pretty good idea, to use it, along with Ash(l)es’ 5 pence coins, to cheat the audiophiles at the Las Vegas Audio Fare. You can also eat the banana, or use it as you please. And, yes, moving away would be a marvellous idea.

ALFANINER: Actually, I prefer to stay for the moment. It pleases me to see you raving.

JIMLINTOTT: If you read again my quote, you will see that I have not skimmed your post without fully reading it. But if you believe, that to be a sceptic means to reject every phenomenon that cannot be technically possible to exist – well, I cannot but disagree.

BPSCG: Right move, but, will you be able to continue to the end? It will be easy to inform us that the chip did nothing, but, should you dare to report otherwise, you know what to expect.

Since your hearing stinks, how can you hear subtleties of a musical performance that the golden eared Mrs. BPSCG can't?

STEENKH: When I suggested the article you mention to 69DODGE, I didn’t do it because I found it supportive to my claims, but because I thought it is indicative that the question is real and not ridiculous. I would also comment everyone to read the whole article (for instance I don’t see recording speeds near 8X - but 1X and 2X) with its conclusions, along with the above mentioned article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?�.
For every objection you have towards the latter, please write to his writer.

Trainman

[Psiload]

Originally posted by trainman
RICHARDM: There are two types of chips: One is for 10 applications and costs 16$ and the other for 30 applications and costs 40$. Which one do you wish to be signed up for?

***snip***


Holy moly! They seriously sell this thing as if it has a set number of "applications"?! Like the flux capacitor wears out, or the quantum foam dries up? Oh brother... now THAT is chutzpah.

If that isn't a tip-off that just screams SCAM!, then Mr. Ponzi deserves a 'Buisnessman of the Century' award.

Do they try to explain how it is that the chips have a set number of applications? I'm sure that's a knee slapper even better than their explanation of how the things are supposed to "work" in the first place.

Somebody please give me a link to that... I need a good laugh.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
I have already stated that, just because the surface noise or the added brightness in an old recording is something “undesirable�, no wishful thinking, “imagination� or self-deception should have altered the sound this way. That’s why I picked up this example for my own protocol. Wrong. Wishful thinking or self-deception is just as capable of producing an apparent negative effect, if that's what you expect, as it is of producing an apparent positive effect. Ever heard of the term "nocebo?" For decades, no DBT was used for testing the abilities of critics or recording engineers, not to mind the people that tune the pianos and are supposed to be able to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings (now they use an electronic device though). But, as Hans the Philosopher put it, “this is irrelevant, since they didn’t claim to do something paranormal�. Hans has it right on the nail. Piano tuners can tell when a string is out of tune because the string vibrates at a different frequency and therefore sounds at a slightly different pitch. That is how being out of tune is defined. There is no question here about whether or not there is a detectable effect. And, as you say, this effect can also be detected by instrumental means, i.e. the electronic tuner you mentioned.

You don't seem to understand why using these examples isn't a good analogy to the magical device you're promoting. An out of tune string sounds out of tune. Two performances will never be completely identical. There will undeniably be audible differences. But your device goes against the way the sound on a CD is known to be encoded and subsequently reproduced. It should, if the sound reproduction works as it is supposed to, be impossible for the device to work. If you want to turn several areas of science on their head, you're going to have to come up with something better than "well, I think it sounds better when I know I'm using the device."

Your example of a music critic is not really relevant here for other reasons, by the way. Although there can be no real doubt that there will be audible differences between different performances, and that a competent critic will be able to tell the difference, detecting these objective differences is not really the important part of the critic's job. The critic's job is to say which of the recordings they prefer, and why. They will be using subjective judgments, as well as objective observations, to make this decision. And, of course, it is not unknown for critics to be asked to say which of two performances they prefer without being told who the performers are: i.e. blind.

In the case of your device, you are claiming that there is an objective and observable alteration to the sound. If you are sure that this is so, why are you so hostile towards blind testing?

[Paulhoff]

trainman

(QUOTE]
“For decades, no DBT was used for testing the abilities of critics or recording engineers, not to mind the people that tune the pianos and are supposed to be able to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings (now they use an electronic device though). But, as Hans the Philosopher put it, “this is irrelevant, since they didn’t claim to do something paranormal�. “[QUOTE]

Now a days, anyone worth their salt uses tuning equipment. Now what does a DBT have to do with tuning pianos�. Here is another ploy to bring in something that has nothing to do with the topic.

Were we not writing about CD and the (un)intelligent chip? And in your title of this thread you are calling DBT a cult.

The first thing that should have been done is establish that DBT is not a cult. And started a new thread about the (un)intelligent chip.

If anything the (un)intelligent chip is a CULT.

cult
n.
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

[Paulhoff]

nothing to add

[Bronze Dog]

BRONZEDOG: Your attitude is respected and understandable Bronzedog. If you want my opinion, Golden Sound should be able to offer its product with the possibility of returning the money, if the customer was not satisfied - although I guess that you would not test it, either.
I don't think companies should market products that can't pass appropriate tests.

The medical quakery business makes a lot of money and has a lot of satisfied customers.

But does it work? No.

The decision to quit evidence-based medicine and switch to quackery often leads to death as well as being cheated. The GISC chip only leads to being cheated, so it's relatively low on my priority list, just below the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze, which does almost nothing useful and generates ozone.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by trainman
BPSCG: Right move, Actually, it's a stupid move, and a probable waste of money, but unlike some people, I don't mind occasionally confessing to error. My correct response to you should have been, "You are the one making the incredible claim that the GSIC works; it is not my job to prove or disprove your incredible claim - it is yours."

But I got stupid. It happens sometimes.
but, will you be able to continue to the end? It will be easy to inform us that the chip did nothing, but, should you dare to report otherwise, you know what to expect. I will report exactly what happens, or does not happen. Unlike some people, I am not afraid to subject my beliefs to a blinded test.
Since your hearing stinks, how can you hear subtleties of a musical performance that the golden eared Mrs. BPSCG can't? Because I have much more musical training than she does and I intend to do the test with music I am intimately familiar with. I certainly won't hear frequencies as high as my wife does, their being masked by my tinnitus, but I'll know where to expect and listen for the crescendi and decrescendi, and so on.

Many years ago, I bought a Shure V-15 Type III cartridge for my turntable. It came with a test record. There were a number of tests you were to administer to make sure the cartridge was tracking properly and so forth. For most of the tests, my reaction was, "Well, er, okay, I think I hear what they're describing."

Then they did the phase test - to check to make sure your speakers were connected in phase. They played a man speaking whose voice had been recorded in phase, then played the same man speaking when his voice had been recorded out of phase. The difference was so dramatic, and so startling, that I burst out laughing.

There was no DBT involved in this, but I'm confident that anyone who is not stone deaf could have heard the difference.

Do you believe you can make the same claim for the GSIC?

[richardm]

Originally posted by trainman
RICHARDM: There are two types of chips: One is for 10 applications and costs 16$ and the other for 30 applications and costs 40$. Which one do you wish to be signed up for?

This worries me a little bit. Normally I like to buy the most expensive Hi-Fi gear I can find, because obviously it always sounds better than the cheaper stuff. But with this difference in applications, I'm confused. Should I buy the 30 application chip because it's more expensive out of the box, or should I buy the 10 application chip because it's more expensive per application? Please advise.

Also, I'm surprised to see that they wear out. I paid £80 per foot for my speaker cables, and far from wearing out they needed a serious run-in process to get the electrons properly aligned and sounding good. Before this was explained to me they sounded just like ordinary cables!!!!!!

Or is it not so much a "wearing out" or a sort of licencing arrangement? Does the chip keep a tally of how many times I use it? Do I need to keep it well clear of my equipment if I want to listen to a CD without "chipping" it? I wouldn't want any of my applications to erode away by mistake!!!!

Also, do you accept Luncheon Vouchers as payment?

[Paulhoff]

richardm

“I paid £80 per foot for my speaker cables, and far from wearing out they needed a serious run-in process to get the electrons properly aligned and sounding good. Before this was explained to me they sounded just like ordinary cables!!!!!!�

I hope to (place your god of choice here) you kidding.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Blondin]

I don't see how someone other than Trainman doing a double blind test can illustrate the value of double blind testing to Trainman. Perhaps a better test would be:

1) Someone other than Trainman purchase two 10CD GSIC units.
2) Mark one "A" and the other "B".
3) Get a 3rd party to use one of the GSIC units to "upgrade" at least 15 CDs without marking or revealing which unit was used in any way.
4) Send both GSIC units to Trainman and ask him to determine which one is "spent" and which one still "works" by whatever means he wishes.
5) Repeat steps 1 to 4 at least 10 times.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
...

ALFANINER: Actually, I prefer to stay for the moment. It pleases me to see you raving.
...
Trainman

Once again, we have progressed through the stages.

This has gone beyond self-delusion. It has gone beyond being willfully stupid. Now it's obviously just plain trolling.

[jimlintott]

JIMLINTOTT: If you read again my quote, you will see that I have not skimmed your post without fully reading it. But if you believe, that to be a sceptic means to reject every phenomenon that cannot be technically possible to exist – well, I cannot but disagree.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[Rasmus]

Originally posted by trainman
RICHARDM: There are two types of chips: One is for 10 applications and costs 16$ and the other for 30 applications and costs 40$. Which one do you wish to be signed up for?

I need an asperin.

BRONZEDOG: Your attitude is respected and understandable Bronzedog. If you want my opinion, Golden Sound should be able to offer its product with the possibility of returning the money, if the customer was not satisfied - although I guess that you would not test it, either.

Make that two.

Are you able to understand that "satisfaction" is a very subjective things and tells us nothing about what a product actually does?

I have intentionally picked up those examples for my “protocol�. It is obvious that the latter is not made to be a reference experiment to persuade a smaller or larger “community of people�, (like the DBT) but to persuade a single person – a lover of music and lover of good audio. That is a significant difference.

Only if you believe that fooling one person is better than proving the truth to all of them, no matter what that truth may turn out to be.

As for your last paragraph, you claim that “listening through them a few times should be sufficient for a reasonably skilled musician (or even a critic!) to identify points at which they differ in a distinctive way and to thus be subsequently able to tell which of the two they are listening to in a blinded test�.

My dad has demonstrated this ability to me several times after just a few tones of various classical recordings when they were broadcast over radio. I was, of course, not controlling if he had a chance to hear what was announced to be played, but I have no doubt that this can be done.

Well, I do not disagree in advance, but I haven’t seen this happening.

So?

For decades, no DBT was used for testing the abilities of critics or recording engineers, not to mind the people that tune the pianos and are supposed to be able to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings (now they use an electronic device though).

So?

But, as Hans the Philosopher put it, “this is irrelevant, since they didn’t claim to do something paranormal�.

Nor did they claim to do something that could actually have been tested at all. Such as giving an opinion about a piece of music. What's to test?

Why should someone tuning a piano be subjected to a blinded test? There is no subjective opinion about what frequency a certain sound uses! Nor does it matter to the job, whether the person doing it uses any tools or tricks to get the job done.

RASMUS: For your technical claims about the cd-r’s, you are referred to the article http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq04.html#S4-18.

I've read that several times now. It doesn't even try to explain why anyone should believe that there is a difference in sound; it only reports that some believe this to be the case.

Also, it does indeed give some detail about why a CD-R might show recording errors. Those factors are well known, fairly understood and have been utterly rare for a number of years now.

If you had bothered to read what I said, or had been able to understand it, you would have noticed that I had something to say about that, too.

As for your banana, it would be a pretty good idea, to use it, along with Ash(l)es’ 5 pence coins, to cheat the audiophiles at the Las Vegas Audio Fare.

So may I quote you as saying you sincerely believe that a banana placed on top of a CD player might change the sound it produces?

You can also eat the banana, or use it as you please. And, yes, moving away would be a marvellous idea.

I think there is a rule against giving the reply I have in mind ...

I notice you ignored most of what I said.

BPSCG: Right move, but, will you be able to continue to the end? It will be easy to inform us that the chip did nothing, but, should you dare to report otherwise, you know what to expect.

A million dollars.

I cannot see any sane person rejecting this much money.

Since your hearing stinks, how can you hear subtleties of a musical performance that the golden eared Mrs. BPSCG can't?

I am, again, amazed at how little you know about music....

STEENKH: When I suggested the article you mention to 69DODGE, I didn’t do it because I found it supportive to my claims, but because I thought it is indicative that the question is real and not ridiculous.

Seen it on the Internet, so it's gotta be true, eh?


I would also comment everyone to read the whole article (for instance I don’t see recording speeds near 8X - but 1X and 2X) with its conclusions, along with the above mentioned article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?�.
For every objection you have towards the latter, please write to his writer.

I object to your assumption that what is written there is useful in any way whatsoever.

At best, it's just another idiot with a web page.
At worst, he just doesn't say what you think he says.

Rasmus.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Rasmus
(quoting trainman)For decades, no DBT was used for testing the abilities of critics or recording engineers, not to mind the people that tune the pianos and are supposed to be able to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings (now they use an electronic device though).

So?The ability "to hear even the slightest tonal difference in the strings" is not remarkable, and does not require any unusual hearing abilities. It simply requires that the listener know what to listen for.

Middle A on a piano is 440 Hz (or is it middle C? I always forget). If that note is made up of three strings, they all have to be tuned to that same 440Hz.

What the tuner does is deaden two of the strings with felt or rubber inserts, so that when he strikes the key, only one string sounds. He tunes that string to A, using a tuning fork. When he gets the string to exactly 440 Hz, the fork will vibrate sympathetically when he holds it to the piano's sound board.

Now, if he removes the muffler from one of the other two strings, when he hits the piano key, both strings will vibrate. The tuned one will vibrate at 440 Hz, while the untuned one will vibrate at, say 430 Hz.

What the listener will hear is a very audible "beat" or "pulse" in the tone, as the waves of the two strings first reinforce each other when the peaks of the two sound waves reach the ear simultaneously, and then cancel each other as the trough of one coincides with the peak of the other. It's an effect that's quite audible, even to a first-time listener, once he's been shown what to listen for. I know this is true because I took an intro acoustics course in college, and the instructor demonstrated it for the entire class, and everyone heard it (or at least claimed to).

As the second string gets tuned closer and closer to 440 Hz, the difference in time between the "beats" will lengthen, until the beat disappears entirely. At that point, the crest of the sound wave of the first string is always arriving simultaneously with the crest of the wave of the second.

Again, it takes no special talent, though, as trainman points out, tuners now use some kind of small electronic device (an oscilliscope?) that tells them when they're on the mark.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
I hope to (place your god of choice here) you kidding.

Paul

:) :) :)

I knew it - I should have gone for the £100 per foot ones. I'm a fool to myself :(


:D

[richardm]

[Middle A on a piano is 440 Hz (or is it middle C? I always forget).


It's A.

Tuners now use some kind of small electronic device (an oscilliscope?) that tells them when they're on the mark.

I have a neat tuner (http://www.tuners.com/pt1.asp) that clips onto the headstock. I'm told it uses a piezo device and counts the number of spikes the vibrations produce when you pluck a string, and figures out the frequency in that manner.

It certainly seems to work well.

[Metullus]

Originally posted by richardm
I knew it - I should have gone for the £100 per foot ones. I'm a fool to myself :(


:D
100 pounds per foot? Too damn heavy.

[Paulhoff]

Please remember to run the wires as much as possible from north to south, we don’t want the electrons to get lost and confused with the magnetite poles of the earth.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Paulhoff
Please remember to run the wires as much as possible from north to south, we don’t want the electrons to get lost and confused with the magnetite poles of the earth.

Paul

:) :) :)


Careful, trainman might actually buy that.

[Ducky]

Ok, so this has gone from a discussion about the gsic chip, to insults, to a discussion about jitter, to insults, to a discussion about whether CDR's and CD's sound the same. Trainman has wasted our time and will obviously not accept that he deludes himself or take the million dollar challenge.

Hey trainman, you still haven't given any evidence of me acting cowardly. You made that statement almost two pages ago in this thread.


Whatever.


Let's stop feeding the troll, people.

[Paulhoff]

Got it, out of here.

Paul

[BPSCG]

Wait a minute! I bought a GSIC-10! They sent me an email yesterday saying they were shipping it and I should have it in a couple of days! I'm all ready to do my test when I get back from my vacation August 21!

What am i supposed to do with it now???

(Okay, people, that was a straight line. You know what to do...)

[Paulhoff]

BPSCG

I will answer you, not you know who.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Metullus]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Wait a minute! I bought a GSIC-10! They sent me an email yesterday saying they were shipping it and I should have it in a couple of days! I'm all ready to do my test when I get back from my vacation August 21!
So this weekend is a no go?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Metullus
So this weekend is a no go? Sorry. I know you're eagerly awaiting...

[Metullus]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Sorry. I know you're eagerly awaiting...
I'm guessing you have a high school class reunion coming up too... am I right? Huh? Am I? Plus a colonoscopy in September? And a blood test you need to study for?:D

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Metullus
I'm guessing you have a high school class reunion coming up too... am I right? Huh? Am I? Plus a colonoscopy in September? And a blood test you need to study for?:D The next high school reunion I go to will be my first.
No colonoscopy I know of.
Blood test was two weeks ago.

If I haven't done this thing by August 27, you hereby have permission to call me James Carville's more obnoxious brother.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Middle A on a piano is 440 Hz (or is it middle C? I always forget). It's A these days (the one above middle C). Although the violin players I've played with in the past always seemed to like to push it up to 444. I think they liked the extra tension.

A bit of a swine if you were a woodwind player and couldn't push in any further.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Mojo
It's A these days (the one above middle C). Although the violin players I've played with in the past always seemed to like to push it up to 444. I think they liked the extra tension.

A bit of a swine if you were a woodwind player and couldn't push in any further.

As a former clarinet and oboe player, I fully agree.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mojo
It's A these days (the one above middle C). Although the violin players I've played with in the past always seemed to like to push it up to 444. I think they liked the extra tension.I read somewhere that George Szell used to have the Cleveland Orchestra tune to A444, for a brighter sound.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by fowlsound
... a former clarinet player ... Yup, that's me.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Mojo
Yup, that's me.
Dang......me too. Bb and Eb clarinet.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Dang......me too. Bb and Eb clarinet. I still have my Bb in the closet. Last time I tried playing it, I discovered some of the pads were rotten and wouldn't properly seal. There were some mechanical problems, too. Every now and then I think about getting it fixed up.

Someday...

I played alto (Eb) in high school.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by trainman
When I suggested the article you mention to 69DODGE, I didn’t do it because I found it supportive to my claims, but because I thought it is indicative that the question is real and not ridiculous. I would also comment everyone to read the whole article (for instance I don’t see recording speeds near 8X - but 1X and 2X) with its conclusions, along with the above mentioned article “Why doesn’t the copy of an audio cd, sound the same?�.
For every objection you have towards the latter, please write to his writer.
The FAQ and article you gave us show that there are problems with copies not being of the same quality as the originals, which we have accepted throughout. It also shows that no difference can be heard between digitally identical copies of good quality, so nothing is changed. The question is real and psychological, and in my view ridiculous.

[trainman]

Dear co-thinkers

It was about 22 years ago, when the one and only (then) audio magazine in Greece, featured the new breakthrough in loudspeaker design. It was easy, under our nose, but nobody had shown it till then: If you would split the crossover in two parts – high frequencies and low - and feed them with separate cable, the sound would improve dramatically.

Some DIYers started opening their speakers in order to perform the act, although the magazine was warning them that there was no unanimity in this proposition. Soon though, destroying the cabinet would not be a necessity. Bi-wiring, as it is called since then, was accepted by the majority of the loudspeaker companies, as an official designer’s tweak.

We usually look at the loudspeakers from the front. If we look at them from the back, we will usually see two sets of terminals (positive and negative), which are, either connected to each other (and are connected to the amplifier with one series of cable) either separate and connected to the amp with two series of cables. There are also cables specially designed for bewiring, which substitute from 4 cable conductors – one for each terminal.

There are also, very respectable loudspeaker companies that insist on the old way of construction, with just one set of terminals.

On which ground the majority of constructors accept bi-wiring? On the ground of sound. And on the same ground the respectable minority excludes it. As the Danish company Dynaudio claims for her products: “… dividing the frequency sections through bi-wiring (two separate cable runs for high and low frequencies) or bi-amping (two separate amplifiers and cable runs for high and low frequencies) is neither beneficial nor optional, as it would alter the balance and affect the impedance character of the loudspeakers and serve no audible benefit�.

With such attitudes, it would be reasonable to suggest that everyone accepts the validity of the bi-wiring effect, even if he does not include it in his design. Furthermore, that should be reinforced by the fact that bi-wiring adds something to the price, as two golden plated terminals are more expensive than four and two lengths of cable, more expensive than one. Is it so?

I will give the word to a respected british journalist, Paul Messenger, former editor of the Hi-Fi Choice Magazine. In his article “to bi or not to bi� on this month’s issue, he writes:

“Speaker bi-wiring might have been around for more than twenty years, but it remains a technique without a proven and accepted rationale. Arguments that high and low frequency electrical signals are best kept separate are myths that have no basis in the physics of electrical theory. It’s also a continuing source of debate and controversy – several leading brands (Focal, Sonus Faber, Dynaudio, Naim and many others) publicly prefer mono-wiring�.

“In practice, bi-wiring tends to have unpredictable results. Sometimes it’s beneficial, but other times it’s better to devote the budget to a single run of good cable. However, one aspect of bi-wiring that never seems to have been discussed, or even considered, is its potential influence on the mechanical vibration effects. Although few (if any) cable makers even consider the mechanical damping properties of their products, the fact remains that the act of bi-wiring replaces the usual short links mono-wiring with the full length of the cable to and from the amplifier. Intentionally or not, this will probably add a measure of mechanical damping�.

“If the benefits of bi-wiring are debatable, few would deny that bi-amping offers real sonic benefits, even though the reasons again remain obscure and unresolved. However, bi-amping obviously achieves much greater mechanical isolation between the speaker drivers than other techniques, especially where the networks feeding each driver are kept separate too, and this could well be at least one reason why bi-amping is an effective upgrade, if an expensive one�.

What do we have here: First, a confession that a technique used by the majority of loudspeaker companies has no “proven and accepted rationale� and, even more, that the arguments used for its approval are “myths� without basis in physics.

Absolutely the same stands for bi-amping, (using two separate amplifiers and cable runs for high and low frequencies) since “the reasons again remain obscure and unresolved�.

And what comes next, is a typical attempt to resolve the mystery through an accepted theory, that of mechanical damping, just to quieten the mind that there is nothing “paranormal� here.

The fact remains though: The whole audio community accepts a tweak based on “experience by ear�, with no explanation and of course, no Double Blind Tests.

Will mr. Jimlintott ask some explanations from his beloved company Paradigm that uses bi-wiring? Will our experts, mr. Hans, mr. Fowlsound, mr. Rasmus and mr. Steenkh, will the JREF accuse the loudspeaker firms for deluding the audience for 25 years? I suppose not.

Trainman

[Psiload]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear co-thinkers

***snip***

The fact remains though: The whole audio community accepts a tweak based on “experience by ear�, with no explanation and of course, no Double Blind Tests.

***snip***

Trainman

The "whole audio community" does not accept bi-wiring:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109419.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.

and:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/id3.html

Many unsubstantiated claims pervade the world of audio, and are often asserted as factually based, without any credible supporting evidence. In these circumstances science takes a back seat to mythology, not unlike the claims of alien abductions, homeopathy, holistic healing, Big Foot sightings, spontaneous human combustion, psychic powers, clairvoyance, repressed memory syndrome, and too many others to list.

Examples include, but are not limited to claims made for the audible effects of:

--Biwiring

Originally posted by trainman

***snip***

Will mr. Jimlintott ask some explanations from his beloved company Paradigm that uses bi-wiring? Will our experts, mr. Hans, mr. Fowlsound, mr. Rasmus and mr. Steenkh, will the JREF accuse the loudspeaker firms for deluding the audience for 25 years? I suppose not.

***snip***



I'd say it's more a matter of the audience deluding themselves for 25 years, and the loudspeaker firms catering to their demands. After all...

"The customer is always right."

Even when they're wrong.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
The fact remains though: The whole audio community accepts a tweak based on “experience by ear�, with no explanation and of course, no Double Blind Tests.I think we've already established that a significant proportion of the "audio community" is pretty gullible.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear co-thinkers

...blah blah BLAH...

Trainman


More crapola that has nothing to do with the GSIC chip.

I'm done with this thread.



Edited to add:

trainman still hasn't answered my questions about his ad hom attacks on me, but oh well. another troll going "woo."

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Psiload
The "whole audio community" does not accept bi-wiring:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/109419.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. Good heavens! Would these be the double-blind tests Trainman insists haven't been carried out?

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by trainman
Dear co-thinkers

blah blah blah...

Trainman

Troll.

Trollmeister.

Troll-atollah.

Trolla-boombalolah.

Troll troll bo-boll, banana-fana fo foll, fo me my mo moll, troll.

There is nothing more here...

[Bronze Dog]

Trainman: Just shut up and do a DBT. THEN we'll have something to discuss. Or, as many of us are fond of saying to people who make outrageous claims without evidence:
Put up or shut up.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
The fact remains though: The whole audio community accepts a tweak based on “experience by ear�, with no explanation and of course, no Double Blind Tests.
So you are saying that many people in the audio community are gullible about other products as well as the GSIC chip?

Er, we believe you.

BTW - why did you post all of that as it actually weakens your argument?

[Hitch]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Trainman: Just shut up and do a DBT. THEN we'll have something to discuss. Or, as many of us are fond of saying to people who make outrageous claims without evidence:
Put up or shut up.

You don't understand.

Double blind testing is anathema to the whole concept of audio tweaks. To properly appreciate the benefits of an audio tweak, one much sense the tweak... embrace the tweak... become one with the tweak. To blind test is to deny the tweak. If one denies the tweak, the tweak gets angry. One does not want to temp the ire of an angry, wrathful tweak. Hallelujah.

[jimlintott]

Yes we have products in the store with bi-wiring terminals. The Klipsch speakers in my living room have bi-wire terminals. I don't use them, I use and recommend regular 16 guage speaker wire. I don't mention the bi-wire terminals as a feature in order to sell and while I would tell a customer how to bi-wire their system ( we do have 4 conductor 16 guage in wall wire that would work great) I would also say that I don't believe there is any benefit.

Customers often ask about 'audiophile' products. I explain how there is a group of people out there who believe all kinds of crazy things, $400 volumn control knobs, cotton sheathed solid silver speaker wire and other extreme items. I always suggest that they will enjoy their audio system more by ignoring these products and spending their money on music.

[delphi_ote]

I stuck some chewed gum on the back of my speaker, rubbed all my CDs down with aloe, and painted my room orange.

I've never experienced such audio bliss!

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Hitch
You don't understand.

Double blind testing is anathema to the whole concept of audio tweaks. To properly appreciate the benefits of an audio tweak, one much sense the tweak... embrace the tweak... become one with the tweak. To blind test is to deny the tweak. If one denies the tweak, the tweak gets angry. One does not want to temp the ire of an angry, wrathful tweak. Hallelujah. It is right to give the tweak thanks and praise.

[alfaniner]

My tweak, which art expensive
Audio be thy name
My GSIC come, burned in be done
On CD as it is in placement
Bring me this day my daily music
And forgo me my logic
As I ignore skeptics who propose logic to me
And lead me not into a Double-Blind test
But deliver me from jitter
For thine is the magic
And the quantum
And the tweak
Forever and ever.
Amen.

[trainman]

Dear co-thinkers

There are some people here that simply do not understand. This is the topic that I created after the slanders of Mr. Randi against the "audio lunatics" like me. It was the way to wage a war as I, personally, understood it, and I, personally wanted it and liked it.

I have already wished Godspeed to some guy called Paulhoff that declared that he is done with me, I wish the same to Fowlsound that declares that he is done with this thread and I will wave my hand in goodbye to anyone that wishes to leave. They are free to go.

As for the rest that insist that I shall put up or shut up, I inform them that I do not intend to shut up before I finish my part in this game and of course, since the administrator finds that I have not violated the rules of contact in the forums - at least to the point that he would be obliged to censor me.

So, dear BronzeDog, you can rave as long as you wish - it does not bother me at all. In contrary, it shows that now that I am entering at the core of my aims, you have nothing more to show than grinding of teeth.

It was Hans the philosopher that asked for evidence, that he claimed that "a credible company would not endorse the chip". Since the tactics of the "credible companies" could somehow bear the evidence of truth, I wouldn't miss such an opportunity. And if there are no firms to accept the GSIC effect, I have shown exemplary how the whole world of loudspeakers uses a tweak that costs to the customer, without any theory to back it up.

The answer of our audio engineer Fowlsound to my provocation was to leave the thread. He wouldn't write of course to the loudspeaker companies asking them for "evidence", he wouldn't embarrass mr. Randi to attack the "swindlers". No. But I was obliged to give evidence; I was obliged to pass the DBT.

Jimlintot that seemed so proud to disagree with me, taking it even as a "compliment" to reject every phenomenon that cannot be technically possible to exist, stops short at clarifying that "he does not mention the bi-wire terminals as a feature in order to sell". It is a honest approach, but would he tell his customers that the benefits of bi-wiring are non-existent since they are based on audio myths used by the companies he promotes, would he proposed to them to buy a single run of loudspeaker cable, would he ask explanations from Paradigm and Klipsch?

Psiload informed me that Axiom Audio actually denies every possible change in sound through bi-wiring. To me this information is an example of an exception reaffirming the rule. His contribution was welcome though, especially the intriguing page about the "audio myths".

As for his comment that bi-wiring "is more a matter of the audience deluding themselves for 25 years, and the loudspeaker firms catering to their demands", well, this seems like an axiom: If some hundreds of thousands of customers could be deluded for 25 years, while the hi-fi press was warning that the bi-wiring effect is not scientifically proven and while the loudspeaker companies, (even battling to beat the prices down), were somehow "forced" to implement it in their products - then we are in front of the biggest example of massive hysteria in history. And of course, he admits thus, that the vast majority of the audio community (the deluded customers, the press, the loudspeaker companies that actualy recommend bi-wiring, the others that do not recommend it but recognize the reality of the effect) accepts the tweak.

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 am sure that millions of audiophiles in America would like to know.

We are near the grand finale. My presentation of official tweaks will continue, and I doubt that anyone of you will make the least of noise about them. I suppose that you will continue the abuses, or leave the thread. The second round will be coming soon to a theatre near you…

Trainman

[andycal]

Heck, I don't mind feeding the troll for a bit longer - it's fun!

This is the topic that I created after the slanders of Mr. Randi against the "audio lunatics" like me.

It's only slander if it's proven to be untrue. So far, Randi has told many, many people that what they beleive in is rubbish, if there was even a shred of truth in what the loons say, they'd have been able to haul him up to court moons ago.

As for the rest that insist that I shall put up or shut up, I inform them that I do not intend to shut up before I finish my part in this game and of course

Eh? Is this a game to you? Come on, if you're serious, be serious. The people here see many, many people with unsubstantiated claims, no evidence just someone posting lots and lots whilst avoiding questions.

The answer of our audio engineer Fowlsound to my provocation was to leave the thread. He wouldn't write of course to the loudspeaker companies asking them for "evidence", he wouldn't embarrass mr. Randi to attack the "swindlers". No. But I was obliged to give evidence; I was obliged to pass the DBT.

OK, I'll write to them. Give me a couple of days, I'll write to Mission, JBL and a few others. Let's see if they can come up with some evidence.

Psiload informed me that Axiom Audio actually denies every possible change in sound through bi-wiring. To me this information is an example of an exception reaffirming the rule. His contribution was welcome though, especially the intriguing page about the "audio myths".

??!

What? You see, this is exactly why people are getting annoyed with you. This says "Hi, well, you see that evidence that you gave against my argument, I'm just going to plum turn it around and say something confusing that means that it actually proves MY point".

That's just plain rediculous.

we are in front of the biggest example of massive hysteria in history

Honestly, get it into perspective. It's just speakers. With music and stuff.

Grandchild: "Hey grandpops, what about all the terrorism, tsunamis and stuff in the 21st century?"

Grandad: "Eh? Nuts to that, did you know that for years speaker companies had been lying about the effectiveness of bi-wiring?!! Caused the downfall of the Bush governement that did"

My presentation of official tweaks will continue, and I doubt that anyone of you will make the least of noise about them.

So what exactly are you trying to do now? You reckon this chip thingy works, we say "no, it doesn't", but for evidence you're going to give a list of a bunch of other stuff that doesn't work either??!!!!

Honestly, read your own posts and if you don't think you're being just a teensy bit odd, you should go lie down for a bit.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by trainman
The answer of our audio engineer Fowlsound to my provocation was to leave the thread. He wouldn't write of course to the loudspeaker companies asking them for "evidence", he wouldn't embarrass mr. Randi to attack the "swindlers". No. But I was obliged to give evidence; I was obliged to pass the DBT. He wouldn't? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60273)
We are near the grand finale. My presentation of official tweaks will continue, and I doubt that anyone of you will make the least of noise about them. I suppose that you will continue the abuses, or leave the thread. The second round will be coming soon to a theatre near you…If the stuff you've drawn our attention to is "official," what on earth are the unofficial tweaks like? :eek:

[Bronze Dog]

More unfounded assertions. More evasions. No evidence. Trainman, have you ever considered a career in propaganda?

[Ossai]

I’m not into audio, but I’ve been following this thread with a bit of interest. To me music becomes noise in about five minutes. I sit and read for hours at a time but I just can’t get into music. Now having said all that, I’ve got a number of friends that are audiophiles. One of my friends recently put together a new home entertainment center, TV, speakers, tuner, etc. No tweaks at all just standard equipment. One of his friends, another audiophile was aghast. We went to his house and then proceeded to dismantle his system (taking the tweaks out one at a time). He never noticed a difference in sound quality. I never noticed one either. :) One of the tweaks was a rock! – No idea what it was supposed to do. I thought it was some sort of decoration until he went into a spiel about it.

trainman
If some hundreds of thousands of customers could be deluded for 25 years, while the hi-fi press was warning that the bi-wiring effect is not scientifically proven and while the loudspeaker companies, (even battling to beat the prices down), were somehow "forced" to implement it in their products - then we are in front of the biggest example of massive hysteria in history. Not even close to the biggest example of mass hysteria.

We are near the grand finale. My presentation of official tweaks will continue, and I doubt that anyone of you will make the least of noise about them. I suppose that you will continue the abuses, or leave the thread. The second round will be coming soon to a theatre near you…

So far your credibility on a scale of 1 to 100 is 0.

You’re refused to take the challenge, even after it was explained that you wouldn’t have to travel to the U.S.A.
You offered no evidence.
You have ignored evidence that was presented.
You even refused to perform a basic test for yourself.
And now you have declared that you will continue to throw out nonsense.
WOW! I’ve never see this type of behavior before, really. :rolleyes:

Ossai

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Ossai
trainman

If some hundreds of thousands of customers could be deluded for 25 years, while the hi-fi press was warning that the bi-wiring effect is not scientifically proven and while the loudspeaker companies, (even battling to beat the prices down), were somehow "forced" to implement it in their products - then we are in front of the biggest example of massive hysteria in history.

Not even close to the biggest example of mass hysteria.

***snip*** Seriously...

I can think of two right off the bat:

1. Dow Corning silicon breast implants.

A major corporation was driven into bankruptcy. The company paid a $3.2 billion(that's billion... with a 'b') settlement. To this day, not a scrap of scientific evidence shows a link between silicon breast implants and disease.

2. Power lines and cancer.

Billions of taxpayer dollars(once again, that's billions with a 'b') have been spent investigating the nonexitent link between power lines and cancer.

Biwiring delusion? Hell... that doesn't even make the top 100 on the list of mass hysteria.

[Paulhoff]

Lets look that the bottom-line. The human mind and its’ great need to have some kind of control over things.

In audio about 30 years ago, they had all kinds of things to play with. The turntable was most likely the favorite audio play toy. You could play with the balancing of the audio cartridge, to get those right grams of force. Play with the anti-skate adjustment. Adjusting the pitch, finding pads to absorb unwanted vibrations. Boy, what a good play toy. I think that a lot of the BS stuff coming out now is filling in the void. True there was a lot of BS stuff back than, but the void is much bigger now. You don’t have to mess with the CD, amp, preamp, tuner, and the speakers. Some people just have to get into things, even when there is wrong and nothing to fix.

Now they have the CD player, nothing to play with. I said to a audiophile friend of mine, “look we will put a lot of knobs on the front of your CD player, they will not do any thing, but it will give you something to adjust and play with anyway.

I will not even get into making your own speakers, and playing with the tube amps.

The need to mess with things will not go away, it just comes back in different ways, but not always in intelligent ones.

I can remember the neighbors across my street, every weekend the boys working on their cars. Now working in the car is pretty much gone too, outside of buying extras to express individualism.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ashles]

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 am sure that millions of audiophiles in America would like to know.
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.

[BPSCG]

I just thought of something.

As I explained earlier, I've purchased a GSIC-10, and I'm going to administer blind (not double-blind, 'cuz you can't do it with only two people) tests to myself and Mrs. BPSCG.

But once we've done the blind tests, whenever one of our friends comes over, we'll administer the DBT. Each time we run the DBT, I'll report the results here (or maybe I'll start a new thread).

What will that prove, assuming the expected happens and nobody can do better than chance in distinguishing the treated CD from the untreated one?

Well, obviously, it doesn't prove that the thing doesn't work; it would only prove that my friends can't detect the difference.

But if after a dozen tests, nobody can tell the difference, I would think we could safely conclude that, at the minimumm the improvement is so slight, so subtle, that people with normal hearing can't detect it, through reasonably decent speakers (Bose Acoustimass satellite/subwoofer system).

Trainman, do you think that would be a reasonable conclusion?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by trainman
If some hundreds of thousands of customers could be deluded for 25 years, while the hi-fi press was warning that the bi-wiring effect is not scientifically proven and while the loudspeaker companies, (even battling to beat the prices down), were somehow "forced" to implement it in their products - then we are in front of the biggest example of massive hysteria in history.
BTW you don't mean Mass Hysteria (http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Mass_hysteria), unless you really are stating that hundreds of thousands of customers of bi-wiring really are exhibiting symptoms "of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses".

Perhaps you mean Mass Delusion. And there have certainly been far larger examples in history. Often involving religion.

I just love the way you attempt to make the world of audio so pivotal in world culture and so exciting.
Many products are sold every day that many people believe work because they have their own preconceptions. And often these products don't really work. So what?

Now I, personally, would like to know which do work and which don't so I can make intelligent choices about which to buy.

But I understand that there are many people out there who are happy to buy products merely on the companies' own claims. When it is later explained that their product might not really work I can understand why they would be defensive - nobody wants to appear as though they have been duped.

But in the end it doesn't do them a lot of good to simply request that the products not be properly tested. Or to point out that many other people have bought the product.

The fact that a belief is held by many is utterly irrelevant as to whether it is actually true.
Especially when we are referring to health products, spiritual beliefs or audio equipment.

[force_redo]

Hi,

this is quite an interesting yet slowly wearing thin subject. May I throw my 2p in?

I have a couple of questions for trainman:

1.) It became quite evident that the manufactor of this chip can't come up with a reasonable explaination on how it works. You said that they might not even know by themselves. Might be, but:
1.1) If they don't know whow it works, how did they invent it?
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"?
1.3) If they don't know how it works, how can they be sure that it's not dangerous? It might "treat" pacemakers or cause cancer. Is it allowed to have it in airplanes? Does it do anything to the reception of my mobile? How can they dare selling something of which they don't know what it does without being sure that they won't be sued for side effects?

2.) Maybe they know how it works, but don't want to tell anyone
2.1) Why don't they go out and win a nobel prize for the revolution of physics, but rather sell some small plastic thingiess for a couple of dollars to some audiophiles? Instead of becoming famous next to Newton and Einstein?
2.2) Have they patented it?
2.2.1) If yes, on what grounds?
2.2.2) If no, why not? Somebody might end up reverse engineering it.


On this note, I'd like to ask Mr BPSCG, whether he would mind opening his chip up after he used it for 10 times and tell us what's inside. I'm just curious wether they make an effort and put something that looks convincing.


Furthermore - I'm trying to keep this simple - comparing it to bi-wiring is not really valid. Nor are comparisons with arm-thick cables, bi-amping and a lot more from this world. I don't believe in any of it, but the crucial point is that a wire or an amp or gold plated things are actually part of your system. As in: The cable carries electricity from the amp to the speaker. So, wether such cables are worth it, is a completely different discussion.
It would be comparebale to a bi-wired cable that is not even connected with your speakers. (Or a banana) Or, the other way around: This chip would be a lot more believable if it was at least somehow connected to your stereo, since there would be at least the slightest possibility that it might work.

By "connected" I mean: Either it's an electrical/elecronical device that is somehow plugged in and carries electricity or it's attached to "carry" or avoid other known effects, like heat, vibration, light, smell, taste.

For the record: In my humble opinion bi-wiring or bi-amping doesn't work either, but it's a lot more difficult to debunk, since it's analog and you can discuss this down to the basics of quantum mechanics, I suspect.


The comparison of CDs with fast recorded CD-Rs is not relevant either. You always mention the 8X laptop copy. The problems these copies used to have (I don't know whether that's the case anymore) is that the copies were technically inferior. As in: the reading laser couldn't read it cleanly and hence the quality would suffer. But this is/was the case because these copies weren't even close to physical 1:1 copies. They were digitally accurate, but that doesn't help if the player can't read parts of it.
Or do you suggest that this chip alters the disc physically? If so, how? da capo...

FR

[Psiload]

Originally posted by force_redo
On this note, I'd like to ask Mr BPSCG, whether he would mind opening his chip up after he used it for 10 times and tell us what's inside. I'm just curious wether they make an effort and put something that looks convincing.

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

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

http://www.machinadynamica.com/3dots.jpg

Inside the GSIC-30 Intelligent Chip:
Three Ultrathin Silver Discs in Emerald Green Sheet
Showing Unusual Quilted Surfaces

Although three dots on a pc board were enough to impress this chucklehead:

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

Could the tiny gold disc in the GSIC-10 and the silver discs in the GSIC-30 really contain quantum material? :rolleyes:

Ummm, Einstein? The "unusual quilted surfaces" of the discs is from the pattern of the pc board on which they are mounted... which is made from fiberglass... which is made of quilted fibers.

Three dots of solder on a hunk of pcb, and Brainiac starts throwing out terms like "coherent quantum superposition" and "Altewischer Plasmons". Is this guy for real?

Edited to add:

I found a good rebuttal:

http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=12130

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Psiload
Three dots of solder on a hunk of pcb, and Brainiac starts throwing out terms like "coherent quantum superposition" and "Altewischer Plasmons". Is this guy for real?
Now I'm no expert, but that 'analysis' appears to be a big fat pile of bollocks.

Firstly what is 'quantum material'?
Nickel? My pen? My cat? Everything in the world perhaps?

Next let's skip down to terms he attempts to explain some terms:
Next, we look at coherent quantum superposition - the interaction of two coherent light sources with matter
Well according to this page (http://physics.nist.gov/MajResProj/QuantumInfo/quantum.html) it is a state that may possibly exist in quantum computing:
In a manner roughly analogous to the conventional processing of information via present-day silicon-based computers, quantum information considers the processing of information through the controlled manipulation of so-called quantum bits or "qubits," according to the rules of quantum physics. Whereas a classical bit can exist in either one of two possible states at any instant in time, conventionally represented as either 0 or 1, a quantum bit can exist simultaneously in a coherent quantum superposition of both the 0 and 1 states. Thus, for example, a three-bit register composed of classical bits may at any instant in time represent any one of the digits 0 through 7. Correspondingly, a three-bit quantum register, however, may represent all of the digits 0 through 7 simultaneously.
So firstly his definition apears to be a load of rubbish.

Secondly he appears to be implying that the GSIC people have cracked quantum computing, and they have used this phenomenal power to... make 10 CDs sound imperceptibly different.


His next term he attempts to define:
quantum entanglement - the comingling of two or more quantum systems to form a single quantum system with correlated properties
Here is a description (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/) of what it actually is, and can be applied to.

Can anyone see how any of that relates to this guy's claims?

Again he seems to be implying that these bits of metal have quantum computing potential.

He mentions Schroedinger's Cat for apparently no relevent reason, then demonstrates some of the problems with his wild theories, and then goes on what appear to be bizzare flights of fancy.

Basically it is a buzzword bonanza of many different Quantum Physics terms blended together in what appears to me to be an utterly meaningless way.

I would be interested to hear the opinion of someone who knows about QM.

And we will all notice, there is a distinct lack of maths in the generation of this guy's theory.

He is able to guess at the existence of a quantum computer generated by the quantum interaction of CD laser light, CD case material and the light in the room without a single equation? Wow.
And the improvement is because of "superior transparency for better optical signal to noise ratio (SNR).".

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.

[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

:) :) :)