Audio Critic

[Steven Howard]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
Let's just pick this up again in October

October. Huh.

Well, since it seems you'll have some time on your hands, I wonder if you'd mind answering a few quick questions.

1. How did you test the GSIC for your review at Audio Asylum? Just walk us through, in general terms, the steps you went through to convince yourself that there is a noticeable effect.

2. Which CDs, in particular, had the most noticeable improvement after the GSIC treatment? Which CDs, if any, had little or no change?

3. Can you describe in a few sentences the nature of the improvement in sound quality? What was wrong with the CDs before that the GSIC fixed?

4. Have you tried listening to a GSIC-treated CD on a different CD player? In your car, perhaps, or at a friend's house? If so, could you still hear the improvement?

[Steven Howard]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Whoa Nellie!


Will you explain the losses involved when copying CD's?

Beleth made an analogy between Wellfed's claim and a hypothetical claim that one could tell the difference between a regular store-bought CD and one recorded by holding a microphone up to a car speaker while the original CD was playing. Piano Teacher is indulging in that logical fallacy where you pretend not to know what an analogy is.

[Wellfed]

Quote:

Originally posted by alfaniner
So, I guess tonight's self double-blind test is a no go then...

I am not sure, there's no reason not to, but then again there is plenty of time until October.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Howard
Beleth made an analogy between Wellfed's claim and a hypothetical claim that one could tell the difference between a regular store-bought CD and one recorded by holding a microphone up to a car speaker while the original CD was playing. Piano Teacher is indulging in that logical fallacy where you pretend not to know what an analogy is.

Thanks for clearing that up..


I apologize to PT for infering that they may have erred in this respect..

However, this may be the time to point out, that there are those who actually prefer CD's that have been created using the method described, and there is no reason to believe that these CD's would not benefit from the GSID.

[Wellfed]

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Howard
October. Huh.

Well, since it seems you'll have some time on your hands, I wonder if you'd mind answering a few quick questions.

1. How did you test the GSIC for your review at Audio Asylum? Just walk us through, in general terms, the steps you went through to convince yourself that there is a noticeable effect.

2. Which CDs, in particular, had the most noticeable improvement after the GSIC treatment? Which CDs, if any, had little or no change?

3. Can you describe in a few sentences the nature of the improvement in sound quality? What was wrong with the CDs before that the GSIC fixed?

4. Have you tried listening to a GSIC-treated CD on a different CD player? In your car, perhaps, or at a friend's house? If so, could you still hear the improvement?

You read correctly, October. I need a break from dealing with Kramer's constant deceitfulness.

1. Simple listening tests.

2. I'd like to keep that information proprietary just in case the JREF Challenge proves real.

3. The improvements are; higher resolution, mildly improved dynamics, improved image separation, lower level events in the mix become more perceptable, lyric intelligibility is improved, the room acoustic become more prominent. All things I would equate to an improved Signal to Noise ratio.

4. I haven't heard the GSIC on any other system. I have heard one report where I treated a disc for a friend that was noted by him as sounding clearer with improved bass in his auto. He has heard this title many, many times while traveling thousands of miles each month.

[Gr8wight]

Well, my hammer's broke, and there ain't a single dent in Piano Teacher's head. I guess he just ain't ever gonna get that we have never been and are not interested in talking about a test of the GSIC device. We are simply discussing the testing of a claim made by an applicant for the one million dollar paranormal challenge. Nothing more. His added levels of complexity are far more vain and ridiculous than Wellfed's.

[KRAMER]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
... I wish to avoid any difference in my environment that is not a necessity in protecting the interests of JREF.

And who determines that? You? Think again.

And still, no revised protocol.

I finally found something good about all of this: when Mr. Anda officially backs out (which at this point seems a near inevitability), people can blame Piano Teacher instead of me.

Cool.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed

3. The improvements are; higher resolution, mildly improved dynamics, improved image separation, lower level events in the mix become more perceptable, lyric intelligibility is improved, the room acoustic become more prominent. All things I would equate to an improved Signal to Noise ratio.

Something that is easily measured.. No?


Or, can you explain your ability to detect a difference in S/N that is undetectble by conventional means?

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER

I finally found something good about all of this: when Mr. Anda officially backs out (which at this point seems a near inevitability), people can blame Piano Teacher instead of me.

Cool.

You are an optimist, aren't ya?

[LostAngeles]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
I didn't think you'd get it, and yes, it IS hard to respect dumbness. Let's just pick this up again in October, perhaps you will have grown up by then.

October, eh?

Kramer, you did get my app didn't you? In fact, since the Summer and Fall schedules have been printed (with no errors presumably, but Administration is EVIL) I can inform you of my full availability up until mid-December for the testing of this marvelous device.

[Wellfed]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
And who determines that? You? Think again.

And still, no revised protocol.

I finally found something good about all of this: when Mr. Anda officially backs out (which at this point seems a near inevitability), people can blame Piano Teacher instead of me.

Cool.

There will be no backing out, official, or otherwise. As you well know, I want to be tested.

As for ascribing blame to PianoTeacher it isn't surprising that someone that practices deception at your level would be so deceived themselves. What does suprise me some is that few here seem able to see through your schemes.

[KRAMER]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
I didn't think you'd get it, and yes, it IS hard to respect dumbness. Let's just pick this up again in October, perhaps you will have grown up by then.

Mr. Anda, we're done with you.

You now sit beside Sylvia Browne and all the others who make paranormal claims and then do whatever needs to be done in order to avoid proper testing.

Your application and claim has been REJECTED.

Feel free to re-apply in March 2006, 12 months after the submission of your initial application. Just don't expect us to pick up where you left off.

My apologies to all the forum members whose lengthy and time consuming contributions to devising an acceptable protocol for this applicant have come to naught.

[IXP]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

If someone walks in with a boombox and plays a song, first off an album, and then off a CD-R, I can usually tell a difference, regardless of the capabilities of the box - unless, of course, it's an extremely crappy box. But you're claiming that you have to have, evidently, perfect, perfect listening conditions to tell the difference between an untreated and a treated CD.

Have YOU done a double-blind test? I would think that a burned CD-R copy, (not an MP3) should play identically. Out of curiosity, if you really can tell a difference on a boombox, can you on a good system as well? If not, then it is likely the boombox is producing more errors reading the CDR than it would on a manufactured CD which is certainly possible.

IXP

[Powa]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
Your application and claim has been REJECTED.

I'm deeply disapointed by this, albeit inevitable, decision. Not because of Wellfed, but because of all the wasted hours I spent reading 19 pages of back-and-forth that I'm not getting back. I don't blame you KRAMER, in fact, it shouldn't have gone past 10 pages. I admire your will to resist ending it sooner.

Oh, well. Next!

IXP objects strongly to one statement of mine; he quotes me claiming that "Wellfed's protocol" cannot yield results because I claim that no human test subject can refine and reify "differences" per Wellfed' protocol, and then adds his objections as follows:

>
This is blatantly false.

Assuming the GSIC does something to the disc, and assuming that you do not know what it does, you cannot possibly know that the proposed protocol could not be passed.

Let us say that the GSIC superposes a 1000 Hz steady tone at the maximum amplitude representable by the binary coding on the disc. You have asserted that WellFed, indeed that no human being, could not possibly distinguish a treated from an unteated disc 10 times out of 10. This is simply absurd.
<

I appreciate IXP's objections (and I'll overlook his example, which I *suspect* might be so far out of context here as to be a strawman argument.) The sticking point is, as I see it, "what is Wellfed's protocol"?

Not each and every one of us here is on exactly the same page, and I see that my concept of it differs from IXP's and others' concept.

Wellfed postulates (my summary) "real, subtle differences that improve a CD sound"; then he provides a test process.

IXP et al. postulate (my summary) that "differences are irrespective of quantity or quality. We are concerned with the most utterly reduced ultimate meaning of non-identity. In effect, if ONE BIT is different -- or ALL bits, a difference exists".

The difficulty I have in leaping from "Wellfed" to "IXP" is that I don't conceive of "audible differences that a critical listener can accurately detect" as being the black box under test, when they are defined the way IXP might seem to me to define them.

I don't see an agreement, anywhere, of what constitutes "differences". We all seem to have our own idea of what they may be; some haven't analyzed them but propose only a word: "differences". This symbol is intended by them to represent a Platonic archetype, and they do not feel that they need to know what it is; only that it exists.

In the reduced view, a difference is a very simple "archetypal" construct; i. e., a lack of identity between two objects. It is ultimately Platonic and theoretical: a semantic construct represented by the symbolic string of characters "differences".

We audio engineers and sound enthusiasts have a great deal of difficulty accepting that, because of the fact that "musical listening" is such a complicated process, as I've explained.

As I see it, IXP wants to test an archetypal non-identity Platonic difference which actually could be -- fully reduced -- "1 bit difference" between the content of a treated disk and an untreated one.

Remember: I'm doing ULTIMATE REDUCTIONISM, as I believe others are also doing. Whether we are doing it the same way is open to argument.

But unfortunately for Platonists, the CD medium has nothing to do with archetypal absolutes. Compact disk error correction uses a complicated methodology that places four redundant copies of the data onto the CD, in linear quadrature. Using Reed-Solomon error correction algorithm, you produce a data stream that is converted into "an analogue of the quantized steps", based on that algorithm's subroutines that check for data-redundancy, loss of digital information, or large non-coherent digital errors between successive words, making some kind of best-guess interpolation if not all four "bunches" of digital data in the buffer, per one rotation of the disk, are equivalent.

Since the data errors that accumulate in each playing are also non-identical, the Reed-Solomon error correction algorithm process produces a unique solution -- actually, digital-word by digital-word, it varies within ranges defined by the algorithm to correct uniquely each quantized step of each sample non-repeatably -- thus, output subtly differs EACH time a given disk is played. By now, the Platonic non-identity is phenomenologically in existence, milliseconds before anybody hears anything, or even if the CD player audio output is not connected to anything.
We have moved far away from the possible theoretical existence of "ultimate archetypal Platonic identities", in comparing any two plays of ONE disk, let alone when comparing two disks.

In effect, you get a slightly different result when you play any one disk, compared to any other time you play it.

Reed-Solomon error correction introduces unremovable uncertainties that nullify postulates of theoretical identitical repeatable results, thus *guaranteeing*, at some level, non-identity in any playback, compared to any other playback.

Don't forget that "compact disks" are, when examined microscopically, full of flaws. Each "set" of flaws is unique, disk to disk.

I own many, many "marginal" disks which have errors that cause unrepeatable variations, play after play. Sometimes you get "a tick here, a tick there" and never in the same order.

How far do we go to reduce to "irreducible differences"?

Furthermore, no two copies of a given title are actually identical, bit-by-bit.

Irrespective of any human observer, on the level of molecules and within the dynamic range of the sound on the disk, there are measurable differences that cause a defined existence of "non-identity" in any comparison of (a) two successive playbacks of a given CD track, even on one machine; and (b) a controlled playback comparison of two individual copies of a CD title.

There is no actual, *observable in matter*, Platonic ideal of identity, comparing any one playing of any one CD to another, or comparing any experiment playing of similar musical passages of different copies of the same title.

Repeating more explicitly: it is actually true that if you analyze the data stream applied to the CD player lowpass filter, due to variations and errors in photodiode response, jitter and nonrepeatable vibration sequences unique to each individual playback experiment, etc. , that no two playings of one disk are actually alike, and thereby non-reducibly identical! Furthermore, some "marginal" disks have very distinct audible, unpredictable error patterns.

That is the sticking point: a conflict between elegant theory, and what happens in reality.

I can hear the objections that will immediate follow, so I offer them below, leaving out cries of "BS, PT! You are a detestible obscurantist!"

"We don't agree with your 'archetypal non-identity' definition";

"We don't CARE about variables that occur each time a disk is played";

"We don't care if the earth's spin rate varies slightly..."

On and on.

Where do we all agree "to draw the line" and define what any human test subject tries to verify in his claim? What is a "difference"?

Just because Wellfed has done a terrible job in trying to describe a difference, doesn't mean that in a good intellectual examination of a proper protocol, we HAVE to use his vaguely worded, imprecise, and incomplete description.

There are actually TWO possible ways to EVADE here: either use Wellfed's vague generality, or use a Platonic ideal symbolic term not represented by any potentially real event that could occur during an actual test. By following either arguably false premise with exactitude, you end up doing TWO tests, which both fail.

To use a quantum analogy, I've tried to show the existence of an actual classical physical uncertainty principle that prevents two successive playbacks of even one disk from being Platonically identical.

Human test subjects have variations in ability to apply their own unique skills of pattern-recognition, which has an uncertainty principle, to wit: no one test subject can "hear", with robotic non-human reliabilty, an identically repeatable sequence. ("Hearing" being defined as the total cognitive act of perceiving sound waves.)

Unfortunately, in the disastrous collision of an audio engineer with philosophical speculators reducing what is at least arguably a Platonic archetype (the black-box symbolic concept of "differences"), we have a profound cultural - logical - practical misalignment.

Furthermore, academic neurologists, neuropsychologists, and digital audio sound equipment designers will ALSO have profound difficulties, I'd argue, in accepting IXP's "elegant" premise.

I am having difficulties abandoning my life's training and work, and understanding of digital sound reproduction, to move over to your ultimate reductionist syllogistic simplification.

You also see this sort of "diving into complexities" offered AS A RUSE by True Believers, who try to EVADE. They do it all the time by constantly trying to change the rules... claiming pseudoscientific variables of dubious reality... baffling with BS, and so forth.

When you perceive me stopping to examine details, your understandable and permissable skepticism raises terrible red flags.

"PianoTeacher pretends that he is a Skeptical Rationalist, but he is actually an undisciplined pseudoscientist, surely a crank, and possibly a fraud offering evasions."

Have I put that succinctly? I hope so.

In fact, it is actually true that I may be deluded and that though I *think* I'm right, and can propose an argument to try to support my position, I am incapable of determining my own validity; that is up to external parties.

It is arguable that, however, I'm right. I may not have given, in this post, the best possible argument, however.

I do appreciate your "red flags", and since my life has involved hooking up real machines and examining what they really do, and trying to figure out what I can really perceive, versus subtleties that I can't see but which I CAN measure with devices -- correcting for errors and noise -- I am not trained to reduce this kind of examination as far as you are trained, purely theoretically and semantically, to reduce it.

I work in "a different department". I am down the hall, over in the engineering lab. You are upstairs, in a philosophy department seminar.

I apologize for my logical shortcomings here, if you are correct and that I *indeed* have shortcomings. Whatever; your "logical shortcomings" are my "toolbox".

As you can see, we have created another subdivision amongst skeptics:

Skeptical Reductionists examining irreducible archetypes, versus Skeptical Practical Technicians.

I guess that goes about as far as my mind can extend, at present, to analyze IXP's objections and answer them. I feel I am in one group of thinkers with respect to this task, versus the other group of critical thinkers.

As such, if you are right in asserting that I'm wrong, and I cannot falsify you, then you prove your assertions. I very much doubt that my explanations above have falsified anything to *your* satisfaction.

And it may follow that, assuming it is a correct and not false premise proposed by IXP and other critics of mine, that I am therefore unqualified to create a protocol for testing "Wellfed's claims". A true scientist must allow for correction of his own errors and neutralization of his own biases.

It seems to me then, trying to be critically detached from my own ego, absolutely possible to argue that (a) PianoTeacher is fundamentally wrong; and (b) his input should be ignored by wiser logicians.

I could *try* to falsify that... but I don't know that I can without exerting more effort, intellectually, than I have ever done before in all my years in college philosophy and logic classes. And it has been a LONG time since I've tried to argue with such sophisticated and intelligent critics!

So, you may be right.

I may stipulate that, and also prefer to decide that theoretical and fundamental logical objections I might not have answered to your satisfaction up to now, clash in my mind with practicality.

PianoTeacher

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
My apologies to all the forum members whose lengthy and time consuming contributions to devising an acceptable protocol for this applicant have come to naught.

No need to apologize, Kramer. After all, it wasn't you that failed to commit to a test, and started making all sorts of demands and excuses as delaying tactics - not to mention arbitrarily deciding after all of this to "postpone" any testing until 6 months from now.

Quote:

Wellfed
As for ascribing blame to PianoTeacher it isn't surprising that someone that practices deception at your level would be so deceived themselves. What does suprise me some is that few here seem able to see through your schemes.

The only one practicing deception here is you, Mr. Anda - even if it's only self-deception. Although from where I sit, you've been doing more than "self" deception here.

[alfaniner]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
Mr. Anda, we're done with you.

You now sit beside Sylvia Browne and all the others who make paranormal claims and then do whatever needs to be done in order to avoid proper testing.

Your application and claim has been REJECTED.

Feel free to re-apply in March 2006, 12 months after the submission of your initial application. Just don't expect us to pick up where you left off.

My apologies to all the forum members whose lengthy and time consuming contributions to devising an acceptable protocol for this applicant have come to naught.

So, this next year is a no-go then. (Sorry...)

On the contrary, KRAMER. This visible negotiation has been very informative I think to all that have been reading it. It's been very good from my side to examine all the "what if's" (but not getting as ridiculous as Piano Teacher). And I'm sure it is similar to the kinds of protocol haggling that has been going on for years.

Maybe if he'd done his double-blind self test a month ago, all this would not have been necessary. I decided to cease making helpful suggestions several pages ago, and shifted into smart(Rule 8) mode. Still, it's been very entertaining.

[jmercer]

Alfa makes a good point. This is sort of a classical dissection of how applicants wiggle, squirm and evade commitment until they force JREF to the decision of dismissal. Very instructive.

[Skeptical Greg]

Piano teacher,

Regards your latest obfuscation, including:

Quote:

Just because Wellfed has done a terrible job in trying to describe a difference, doesn't mean that in a good intellectual examination of a proper protocol, we HAVE to use his vaguely worded, imprecise, and incomplete description.

Welfed just posted..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wellfed

3. The improvements are; higher resolution, mildly improved dynamics, improved image separation, lower level events in the mix become more perceptable, lyric intelligibility is improved, the room acoustic become more prominent. All things I would equate to an improved Signal to Noise ratio.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is hardly a " vaguely worded, imprecise, and incomplete description "..


I will ask you the same question I asked Wellfed:

Something that is easily measured.. No? ( Signal to Noise ratio )



Surely, you would not contend that the human hearing system is capable of resolving a difference in S/N undetectable by conventional methods?


If this is Wellfed's contention, then it is most assuredly a paranormal claim.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Alfa makes a good point. This is sort of a classical dissection of how applicants wiggle, squirm and evade commitment until they force JREF to the decision of dismissal. Very instructive.

Off course.. Not the applicants fault. The JREF dismissed the application.

[KRAMER]

Quote:

Originally posted by LostAngeles
October, eh? Kramer, you did get my app didn't you?

YES. We just got it and we happily accept it. Everything looks good, but...

Please post your protocol for forum review. I'd like everyone here to see it and comment. Maybe even Anda will learn something, should he decide to re-apply in a year, which he is entitled to do.

I'm starting a new thread entitled GSIC Audio, so post your protocol there. At no less than 18 pages, this thread is definitely finished.

I have no reason to doubt that we will see an agreement on a acceptable protocol within days, and a test within weeks, hopefully through CFI-West. I'll contact them today to secure their participation.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
3. The improvements are; higher resolution, mildly improved dynamics, improved image separation, lower level events in the mix become more perceptable, lyric intelligibility is improved, the room acoustic become more prominent. All things I would equate to an improved Signal to Noise ratio.

Here lies the core of the problem. I have argued endlessly, in audiophile forums, about the inherent subjectivity of the language employed, and the complete lack of verificability because of it.

Lets take any of those concepts, "higher resolution", "improved image separation", any. If this events are in the world and not in the mind of the listener, why does him/she needs certain state of mind (not being stressed for example) in order to pick them up?

Seems to me that an "improved image separation" should be a measurable variable, even when using just the ears as the "measuring tool". One have to develop a scale, say, from 1 to 10, in which one needs to anotate the perceived "separation" of the CDs that are being tested. Other than this, which is a very imprecise way to do it, I dont see how an immeasurable variable could be of any value to determine nothing.

[Darat]

It is going to be, lets say interesting, to compare the length of protocol negotiations with LostAngeles to the time taken for Wellfed to well, ... well we know what Wellfed did... October... yeah right...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
Your application and claim has been REJECTED.

OOPS Oh well. I thought he had an entire year to apply.

[LostAngeles]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
YES. We just got it and we happily accept it. Everything looks good, but...

Please post your protocol for forum review. I'd like everyone here to see it and comment. Maybe even Anda will learn something, should he decide to re-apply in a year, which he is entitled to do.

I'm starting a new thread entitled GSIC Audio, so post your protocol there. At no less than 18 pages, this thread is definitely finished.

I have no reason to doubt that we will see an agreement on a acceptable protocol within days, and a test within weeks, hopefully through CFI-West. I'll contact them today to secure their participation.

I'll dig it up and post it then. Then once we've got that, we'll figure out when to do the test.

I have some more comments on the whole "time" thing, but I'll put them in the other thread, just for posterity.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
Off course.. Not the applicants fault. The JREF dismissed the application.

Yes, but only after the applicant moved the goal-posts so many times by changing the requirements (observers, listening conditions, seeing the CD's put it, etc.) and stalling about picking dates (after the High School reunion, etc.) that it became apparent the applicant was never going to test. This went far beyond any reasonable expectation of how someone negotiating protocols in good faith would have conducted themselves. And I believe that this was Mr. Anda's intention - to continue to make demands and stall until he found a way to get JREF to drop the application, or found some other way to excuse himself from the test. I further believe that Mr. Anda used this forum to provide an image of "good faith protocol negotation" to "show" that he was working toward an agreement that he had no intention of ever committing to.

Demands in order of being made (as seen in the application thread itself):

1) Disks to be treated with Walker Audio Vivid, not germane to the test. (Kramer said "OK".)
2) Postpone until after HS reunion, please. (Kramer said "Let's pick this up in July, then.")
3) Called Kramer, and told him June would be fine - then wrote he had a strong aversion to doing the test in June, and wanted it pushed back until the first two weeks in August.
4) The "Steven Howard Protocol" , sent by Wellfed was submitted to Randi on 4/2 and approved. Wellfed then stated in the forums that the protocol still needed revision, so it was then cancelled. (Along with making some rather nasty remarks about Kramer and JREF.)
5) Kramer repeatedly requests Mr. Anda's revised protocol. Mr. Anda refused to address it, instead quibbling over minutae.
6) Mr. Anda proposes a June 6 testing, assuming a protocol can be worked out, along with a final testing on or after July 25. Kramer basically says "Don't waste my time. Submit a protocol, then we'll talk about dates."
7) Mr. Anda then specifies a new protocol - completely throwing out the old one - which has the following new requirements:

a) One spent GSIC chip
b) One associate of Mr. Anda's to be present
c) One identical CD owned by Mr. Anda "as a control"
d) 15 minutes to "acclimate"
e) The applicant (Mr. Anda) will handle the CD's himself
f) Mr. Anda will "confirm" that the "unspent" GSIC chip is still "active"
g) Mr. Anda will be the ONLY one to handle the disks
h) Mr. Anda can use any "audio accessories" within his system he wishes during the test
i) In case of "tube failure", he'll be given time to install tubes and recalibrate his system.

Kramer, of course, rightfully objects to a number of these conditions.

8) Then there's a lot of "back and forth" between Kramer and Mr. Anda, including citing "issues discovered" by us in the forums.
9) All of a sudden, there's a problem with having observers in the room while Mr. Anda is listening.
10) Then Mr. Anda once again throws out the protocol under discussion and tells Kramer that he and Gr8wight are working out a new protocol. He also now suddenly requires "line of sight" to the audio system.
11) A new protocol is submitted, but Kramer has to remind Mr. Anda that more than one JREF person will be present, and the test will be videotaped.
12) Mr. Anda again requires a "line of sight" to the equipment, and makes it a sticking point, as well as having "no observers in the room", which is unacceptable to JREF.
13) Randi reviews the proposed protocol and (thankfully) nixes the "spent chip".
14) Kramer again asks if he can submit the protocol. Mr. Anda agrees to having "a observer" in the room, but is still concerned about not seeing the system and how it will affect the test.
15) Mr. Anda then makes a threat in the forum that he was going to give these talks another day to "shape up" , or table the entire thing until October. Kramer warns him that this action will result in his claim be rejected.
16) Mr. Anda then puts off things until October, as threatened.
17) Kramer keeps his promise.

How is this not the applicants fault?

[KRAMER]

An applicant has one year to reach a test date.

An applicant does NOT have one year to jerk us around with absurd claptrap like...

"I don't want any observers in the room", or...

"My high school reunion is coming up", or...

"Why won't you tell me if the final test will be the same as the preliminary?", or...

"Why can't I see my cd player?", or...

"I thought I could be my own observer", or...

"I need 20 minutes after listening to tell you what I think".

Get outta here.

Every claim deserves equal time. Mr. Anda has mercilessly devoured a far greater share of what time we have available than he or any other applicant deserves.

We have other applicants. The time spent on Anda has unfairly taken time and attention away from other applicants.

Weeks ago Anda submitted a protocol that was immediately accepted, but then he waffled and withdrew it while trying to say that it wasn't a REAL protocol. Then why did he submit it? Why was he so excited about Randi reveiwing it? We'll never know.

Yes, we've had quite enough of what Mr. Anda feels is his right as an applicant. The JREF has rights, too, and it's our Challenge, and we feel we conduct it fairly. Anda got more than his fair share.

We also feel that anyone who truly wants to be tested WILL be tested, and the new application for the GSIC chip will prove that very quickly.

And if Anda sees the new protocol and agrees that it's fair, I think everyone, including this new applicant, would be pleased as punch to see him offer to renew his claim with the new/accepted protocol, and take his proper place at the forefront of a proper test before a proper team of observers.

The new thread is called GSIC AUDIO. Stay here if you like, but I'm not coming back.

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by IXP
Have YOU done a double-blind test? I would think that a burned CD-R copy, (not an MP3) should play identically. Out of curiosity, if you really can tell a difference on a boombox, can you on a good system as well? If not, then it is likely the boombox is producing more errors reading the CDR than it would on a manufactured CD which is certainly possible.

IXP

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

In general, the difference between regular CD tracks and MP3s is readily discernable on almost any stereo; but a good CD burner can almost duplicate a store-bought CD - minus some slight flaws that cheaper CD players enhance.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that, though...

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by KRAMER
An applicant has one year to reach a test date.

An applicant does NOT have one year to jerk us around with absurd claptrap like...

"I don't want any observers in the room", or...

"My high school reunion is coming up", or...

"Why won't you tell me if the final test will be the same as the preliminary?", or...

"Why can't I see my cd player?", or...

"I thought I could be my own observer", or...

"I need 20 minutes after listening to tell you what I think".

Get outta here.

Every claim deserves equal time. Mr. Anda has mercilessly devoured a far greater share of what time we have available than he or any other applicant deserves.

We have other applicants. The time spent on Anda has unfairly taken time and attention away from other applicants.

Weeks ago Anda submitted a protocol that was immediately accepted, but then he waffled and withdrew it while trying to say that it wasn't a REAL protocol. Then why did he submit it? Why was he so excited about Randi reveiwing it? We'll never know.

Yes, we've had quite enough of what Mr. Anda feels is his right as an applicant. The JREF has rights, too, and it's our Challenge, and we feel we conduct it fairly. Anda got more than his fair share.

We also feel that anyone who truly wants to be tested WILL be tested, and the new application for the GSIC chip will prove that very quickly.

And if Anda sees the new protocol and agrees that it's fair, I think everyone, including this new applicant, would be pleased as punch to see him offer to renew his claim with the new/accepted protocol, and take his proper place at the forefront of a proper test before a proper team of observers.

The new thread is called GSIC AUDIO. Stay here if you like, but I'm not coming back.

Finally - a reaction truly worthy of respect. C-ya, Anda.

Wellfed's ATTEMPT to define "differences" --
>
3. The improvements are; higher resolution, mildly improved dynamics, improved image separation, lower level events in the mix become more perceptable, lyric intelligibility is improved, the room acoustic become more prominent. All things I would equate to an improved Signal to Noise ratio.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is hardly a " vaguely worded, imprecise, and incomplete description "..
<

It is not only all of the above, but also factually incorrect and internally illogical, and in direct contradiction to actual engineering concept of "Signal to Noise Ratio".

There is especially no such engineering or scientific term as "lyrical intelligibility". We can only guess if Wellfed means "lyrics of vocals, sung by a singer" or, in the musical definition, "lyricism related to the flow of melody."

Even here, his terms start to break down into possibilities that must be narrowed.

That is the PROBLEM.

In audio engineering, and in digital audio encoding and reproduction, we have heirarchies of differences that have been very thoroughly defined though of course, ultimately, language is Platonically imprecise, ultimately reduced.

A general working construct = an accepted term.

So, we can define "differences" by instrumental means, irrespective of human judgment, using metric analyzers.

Subjectivists reject this; but due to the various uncertainties I just explained, only the carefully controlled measurements and collections of data can satisfy an engineer. Aesthetic hearing analogies and allusions are VERY INTERESTING, and often are sought for by the very same engineers as they refine audio equipment and techniques -- as I said, long ago in this odyssey, DBT'ing is not used at every step of audio development. Nor is ultimate semantical reductionism.

The AB test generically, or specific ABX methodology, is a synthesis of both the aural, and the instrumental, measurement process.

It replaces 'metric analyzer' with 'hearing'. Because of the problems I elucidated about human cognition, the examples must be HIGHLY CONTROLLED and VERY NARROW IN CONTEXT.

It is indeed possible for trained listeners to hear fine distinctions of tone that are DIFFICULT to measure and quantify by simplistic metric processes using what I might call one-dimensional data point acquisition.

For the metric analysis to be as richly complex and sensitive as human hearing, it has to test for MANY variables of sound, not "individual cycles of pressure".

Recent developments in audio metrics include three-dimensional spectral plotting, FFT analysis, false-color data baseline dispersion, and so forth. These multi-dimensional tests and displays of data points are much more flexible and information than most of the practical ways I used, say, in 1976: looking a the meter on a Sound Tech analyzer while checking only (say) THD, IMD, of frequency response.

Some responsible and advanced engineers and investigators do claim that, at present, metrics cannot match the ultimate cognitive ability of certain hypertrophically sensitive listeners but make up for that in repeatability!

If we decide to go another route and just make a very simple declarative definition of what a difference is, eliminating any of the things that Wellfed proposed, we could instead summarize a difference as being "what Wellfed says, if he reports that two CDs do not sound identical." This puts us at the precipice of another slippery slope, though. But it does avoid a debate on "engineering definitions" versus "literary allusions" versus "poetic analogies", versus "what one, or many, musicians say", versus "what Harry Pearson says in ABSOLUTE SOUND", and so forth.

We get closer to "the unknown black box" this way, merely acknowledging that Wellfed must be able to spot his privately held, nonverbal mental conception of a difference.

Let us propose that Wellfed agrees to report the state of a test of a pair of CDs this way:

If he hears a difference, qualities of which he needn't divulge to us, in alternating a pair, he yells "DIFFERENCE!" And he then tells us which CD has been treated. He must, in recognizing the difference, also mentally conclude "one entity is better than the other" and infer that "the better one has been treated": he says, for example, "CD A - treated".

We compare with the secret score and see if there is a corrrespondent.

THIS is the kind of test that I think you, Gr8wight, and others want to conduct.

The problem now becomes the steps of the protocol testing methodologies with respect to "hearing". It is a basic requirement of the test that Wellfed has to be able to hear the pairs; so whether anybody likes it or NOT, we add in another component: human cognitive faculties and variabilities, and tendency to experience systematic and random errors. Sorry!

In ABX, Wellfed stands a *chance* of somewhat systematically recognizing both "DIFFERENCE" and "better or worse, inferring which one was treated and which one was not".

In his PROPOSED protocol, he stands no chance of recognizing those differences, systematically and repeatably, unless the test CD pairs have differences per Beleth's speculative alteration: i. e., unless the differences are really, ultimately, non-subtle and therefore what I would describe as being "tautologically unsuitable for the test" since ALL can hear them, every time. If GSIC is non-subtle, it is non-controversial, and Randi wouldn't have mentioned it and poked fun of it in his Commentary, and Wellfed would not have wanted to challenge him about it.

So, it follows that what has brought us all together here is this: THE DIFFERENCES ARE SUBTLE, and "non Belethlike" per her example.

Believe me, I've been to subjectivists' homes and experienced their reveries at high end audio stores. I have to keep my opinions to myself, and be sociable. I see self-delusional convictions constantly being played out.

And, true, SOMETIMES I seem also, in these social non-blinded tests, to be able to detect interesting fine distinctions and nuances that I suspect might disappear in critical testing: I experience my own aural delusions!

As we progress on an infinitely-variable sliding scale of differences, from "Ultimately Subtle, Platonically True but Below Any Detection", to "Non-Subtle, and Obvious to All", we increase our confidence in recognizing effects repeatably. And at some point we end up at the Belethlike state of difference: "obvious to all potential test subjects". Of course, we also have to define the numerical limits of the test subject set; do we mean "obvious to every single person living on the planet?" or "obvious to everyone immediately involved in the test?" etc. -- we have to agree on limits here to make the test practical.

As I see it, we could test by having (a) Wellfed use his actual comparative test process, sloppy though it is, but only after all parties agree on an EXTENSIVE and completely vetted set of criteria for "differences" (which he has to keep in mind during the test, and not get confused and inconsistent about); or (b) we have to use AB or ABX type testing and suppress Wellfed's definition of difference, and allow it to be a nonverbal concept in his mind; or we could permit variations in a and b to exist, with adjustments made for weighting the significance of whether or not he can identify and quantify the differences, which only help him to make his FINAL binary choice anyway!

Wellfed may prefer to increase his chances of success by reifying discrete differences and concentrate ONLY on one factor.

He could try "holistically", ignoring individual differences but only trying to think "what's better, what's worse" but without a control, I don't see how he can succeed in making that distinction. He has to have a "control" -- a neutral sample. He has to have a treated disk and an untreated disk, and hear ALL THREE SIGNALS: control, treated, and untreated. He actually knows which is the control in one way of doing this. He matches the two unknowns against the control, and then decides "better than the control, or worse than the control, or equal to the control."

Ooops! This turns out not to be precisely applicable to a dichotomous test of alleged GSIC effect, due to the intrusion of the control. How does the control differ from the non-treated disk? Well, we could ALLOW for the control to BE the non-treated disk. It is played twice in three different sample of each pair of disks: once as "the control", then again one time secretly and randomly, as one of the two alternated samples of sound that Wellfed must try to compare. Then, Wellfed tries to match up the following test examples and see which differs from the control.

For a protocol to succeed, "ten correct positives out of ten tries" cannot be the rule to measure pass/fail, using hearing and a human test subject over time. [Note: this is PianoTeacher's practical assertion, which may be falsified. Go study neurophysical testing and read results of a lot of audio tests and start to integrate that information into a process to test the assertion...]

No matter what Wellfed tries to do, and no matter how good a listener he is, even under ABX'ing with "non-Beleth-like" CD pairs (i. e., ones with small magnitude differences in total information content) he can't achieve 10 out of 10. With Beleth-disk pairs, he might -- depends on Beleth's lossy copying scheme for the altered disk.

And his chances of hearing subtleties and eliminating false positives increases if he changes from a dichotomous test, to a test that compares two unknowns against a control.

I think that in (a) above, the preponderance of accumulated knowledge of audio testing asserts today that there is no chance that Wellfed can succeed, no matter how exquisite his definition of difference has been refined in our mutually-agreeable process: because the temporal controls are weak or nonexistent, Wellfed loses concentration and begins to make errors. He admits that he is looking for a sort of global agglomeration of nuances all together, that add up to a perceived difference: a state of sounding better. We *could*, of course, help him get closer to being able to pass, by reducing the magnitude of the challenge: for instance, require him only to report ONE small narrow phenomenal difference (i. e., background hiss.) Even then, we could more easily and repeatably measure that, repeatably, with metrics. His error-prone nature still continues to exist, revealing human fallibility.

In (b) above, with high repeatability factors and greater controls, Wellfed's real perceptions are enhanced. This tends to eliminate loss of focus, confusion over very vague generalities, and to reduce the tendency for musical emotions to come into play. His chance of passing the test by merely identifying a difference and inferring that the (internal nonverbal) criterion of "better" and therefore allegedly treated may be inferred. But, even so, he is still likely to make at least one mistake and generate one false positive; whether he does or not will vary, likely according to chance. Under potentially possible test situations, he could take the 10 out of 10 test ONCE and fail...and take it again, and PASS. It would vary all over the place of course, since he won't always achieve a fixed error rate of only 1 false positive. We may likely experience a very random random sequence of passes and failures, ALMOST EVER achieving "perfect 10 out of 10"; sometimes "one error"; or maybe "no errors at all", given the uncertainties of human response to audio testing.

In Wellfed's protocol, he FAILS when any one of the above circumstances occurs, except the almost predeterministically impossible perfect score. I claim, then, that the test is moot.

(Are you seeing here my inference that the test is simply unfit to be judged via a dichotomous Randi Challenge?! We have to throw away the Wellfed protocol; I need assistance -- and time -- in crafting a better one, let alone the CORRECT one! I think it is unfit; the gestalt of the test probably cannot be reduced to resolve any action or phenomenon whatsoever, using one human test subject and hearing. It must be done, instead, with more subjects, acquiring an extensive data set or sets, and statistically analzying and properly weighting them by methods defined in the protocol. A dichotomous, deterministic result using one proscribed test, and one subject, demanding a perfect score will [probably, or even certainly per PianoTeacher] fail.)

As I said, though ABX *helps* Wellfed to have a greater chance of succeeding, it is obvious from his own resistance, reported to the forum, that it is outside of his experience and he won't undertake to do it. Maybe he will sometimes try it, away from here, and will get acquainted with the powerful abilities he can gain via enhanced focus leading to lower error rates and higher confidence.

Now I am running out of time here, and I admit that though I've tried to refine the explanation above, I may not have done if perfectly and may be overlooking other possibilities, conflating things, or suggesting non-practical distinctions that somebody can think through. However, these ideas came to me as I crafted speculative examples of alternative test methods. Some of these I'd done with at least SOME similarities to the examples I've written here; some I've not done but have only read about in scientific papers or audio journals.

Diogenes, I am sure -- as I said before -- that it is likely for you to find my answers obscurantist. I infer this from the way you have parsed almost every explanation I've given, for the ones that you have deigned to critique.

I tend to conclude that a debate between Diogenes and myself cannot be resolved and considered PROVED by either Diogenes or myself -- at least, I am always tending to miss gaining conviction that he actually corrects me, and since he systematically finds fault with my logic, it either isn't "logic " but rather junk; or it IS logic and Diogenes' analysis is incomplete or even wrong. (I do hope that this is fairly neutral and non-egocentric.)

My operative hypothesis is, then, that we don't communicate efficiently and with sufficient commonality (and that maybe somewhere I am making errors but cannot perceive them.) The fault is certainly just as much MINE as I might allege it is his; he might see it as ALL being my failure; he might also allow for the responsibility of failure to communicate being on a continuum with each of us sharing a part of the blame; and so on: we can now proceed to argue WHERE we want to adjust the slider... but I'd rather pass. I mean to say this with all good collegial respect for Diogenes!

PianoTeacher

Through an editing error, I wrote:

>
a very random random sequence of passes and failures, ALMOST EVER achieving "perfect 10 out of 10"
<

when I should have written:
>
a very random random sequence of passes and failures, ALMOST NEVER achieving "perfect 10 out of 10"
<

I think that I'd tend to accept Beleth's math on this anyway, so never mind "ALMOST NEVER" and subsitute her calculation of likelihood.

PianoTeacher

[Wellfed]

Quote:

Originally posted by jmercer
Yes, but only after the applicant moved the goal-posts so many times by changing the requirements (observers, listening conditions, seeing the CD's put it, etc.) and stalling about picking dates (after the High School reunion, etc.) that it became apparent the applicant was never going to test. This went far beyond any reasonable expectation of how someone negotiating protocols in good faith would have conducted themselves. And I believe that this was Mr. Anda's intention - to continue to make demands and stall until he found a way to get JREF to drop the application, or found some other way to excuse himself from the test. I further believe that Mr. Anda used this forum to provide an image of "good faith protocol negotation" to "show" that he was working toward an agreement that he had no intention of ever committing to.

Demands in order of being made (as seen in the application thread itself):

1) Disks to be treated with Walker Audio Vivid, not germane to the test. (Kramer said "OK".)
2) Postpone until after HS reunion, please. (Kramer said "Let's pick this up in July, then.")
3) Called Kramer, and told him June would be fine - then wrote he had a strong aversion to doing the test in June, and wanted it pushed back until the first two weeks in August.
4) The "Steven Howard Protocol" , sent by Wellfed was submitted to Randi on 4/2 and approved. Wellfed then stated in the forums that the protocol still needed revision, so it was then cancelled. (Along with making some rather nasty remarks about Kramer and JREF.)
5) Kramer repeatedly requests Mr. Anda's revised protocol. Mr. Anda refused to address it, instead quibbling over minutae.
6) Mr. Anda proposes a June 6 testing, assuming a protocol can be worked out, along with a final testing on or after July 25. Kramer basically says "Don't waste my time. Submit a protocol, then we'll talk about dates."
7) Mr. Anda then specifies a new protocol - completely throwing out the old one - which has the following new requirements:

a) One spent GSIC chip
b) One associate of Mr. Anda's to be present
c) One identical CD owned by Mr. Anda "as a control"
d) 15 minutes to "acclimate"
e) The applicant (Mr. Anda) will handle the CD's himself
f) Mr. Anda will "confirm" that the "unspent" GSIC chip is still "active"
g) Mr. Anda will be the ONLY one to handle the disks
h) Mr. Anda can use any "audio accessories" within his system he wishes during the test
i) In case of "tube failure", he'll be given time to install tubes and recalibrate his system.

Kramer, of course, rightfully objects to a number of these conditions.

8) Then there's a lot of "back and forth" between Kramer and Mr. Anda, including citing "issues discovered" by us in the forums.
9) All of a sudden, there's a problem with having observers in the room while Mr. Anda is listening.
10) Then Mr. Anda once again throws out the protocol under discussion and tells Kramer that he and Gr8wight are working out a new protocol. He also now suddenly requires "line of sight" to the audio system.
11) A new protocol is submitted, but Kramer has to remind Mr. Anda that more than one JREF person will be present, and the test will be videotaped.
12) Mr. Anda again requires a "line of sight" to the equipment, and makes it a sticking point, as well as having "no observers in the room", which is unacceptable to JREF.
13) Randi reviews the proposed protocol and (thankfully) nixes the "spent chip".
14) Kramer again asks if he can submit the protocol. Mr. Anda agrees to having "a observer" in the room, but is still concerned about not seeing the system and how it will affect the test.
15) Mr. Anda then makes a threat in the forum that he was going to give these talks another day to "shape up" , or table the entire thing until October. Kramer warns him that this action will result in his claim be rejected.
16) Mr. Anda then puts off things until October, as threatened.
17) Kramer keeps his promise.

How is this not the applicants fault?

If your facts were accurate you would have a case. The truth of the matter is your facts are not accurate. Much of what you base your opinion on rests with the word of a deceptive snake in the grass. I am convinced this snake was only too happy to reject my claim. I saw very little good faith on Kramer's part in my dealings with him. His statement that I had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol was an outright lie. I could go on.

I am quite disappointed that the JREF Challenge did not prove to be a legitimate enterprise. I was truly looking forward to the opportunity. FWIW, I don't see where Kramer is within his rights to reject my claim, I will be researching the matter. In any event I don't see any wisdom in "negotiating" further with a person of Kramer's ilk.

Wellfed describes "lyric intelligibility" and not "lyrical intelligibility" as I accidentally typed.

I still am not sure though what he has in mind, unless we are limiting the examples to vocals, and he is trying to discern words clearly; or is he using "lyric" in its purely musicotechnical sense, related to melody?

PianoTeacher

[alfaniner]

Um, you guys can stop blathering on now...

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Wellfed
If your facts were accurate you would have a case. The truth of the matter is your facts are not accurate. Much of what you base your opinion on rests with the word of a deceptive snake in the grass. I am convinced this snake was only too happy to reject my claim. I saw very little good faith on Kramer's part in my dealings with him. His statement that I had agreed to the Steven Howard protocol was an outright lie. I could go on.

I am quite disappointed that the JREF Challenge did not prove to be a legitimate enterprise. I was truly looking forward to the opportunity. FWIW, I don't see where Kramer is within his rights to reject my claim, I will be researching the matter. In any event I don't see any wisdom in "negotiating" further with a person of Kramer's ilk.

The events cited by me are from your own emails in the JREF Challenge subforum, where it was cut and pasted during this entire process. You say it's a lie? Fine. Show us the emails and communications proving it. I'd also like an explanation of why you didn't challenge these items and produce proof that this was all a lie and sham as it was happening.

Until then, Mr. Anda, I will continue to assume that YOU are being deceitful... because that's where all the current evidence points.

[Squidd]

Can we nail some boards over the door to this thread? Maybe put up a nice big "CONDEMNED" sign?

Seriously, damage to the foundation has caused some major structural instability, and this thing could collapse under its own weight any second now. You don't want to be in here when that happens.

[Beleth]

HITLER
HITLER
HITLER.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diogenes
What on earth are you carrying on about?

Instead of "carrying", I used the term "blathering", but in effect we asked the same question. And I predict you, as I, will get no answer, but instead another boring 3000 word essay.

[jmercer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beleth
HITLER
HITLER
HITLER.

Eh? Who?

[Bronze Dog]

Quote:

Originally posted by Squidd
Can we nail some boards over the door to this thread? Maybe put up a nice big "CONDEMNED" sign?

Seriously, damage to the foundation has caused some major structural instability, and this thing could collapse under its own weight any second now. You don't want to be in here when that happens.

*Quietly sneaks out from his dark lurker corner.*