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