Audio Critic

[jmercer]

PT - there are actually some people who are fairly knowledgeble about physics on this forum, athough I haven't seen any of them participate in this particular thread.

The problem you are encountering here is simply that you write the longest posts I've ever seen. People who read them and understand them are at a complete loss on how to effectively respond to them, because the bulletin board doesn't lend itself to efficient text quoting and manipulation.

Allow me to suggest that you provide the fundamentals of your views first in a summarized synopsis. Those points that are questioned can then be elaborated upon in a conversational manner, while the ones that are accepted need no further explanation.

 

[Gulliver]

Wellfed's Last Chance As Far As I'm Concerned

You can not be serious. Where is the rest of my text? I'll supply it in my next post along with the subject line as originally presented.

I assure you that I'm perfectly, and professionally, serious. You need to understand that I am concerned only with the text of the email that you sent personally to Kramer. Unless you made it clear within that email that you were just joking around, having idle thoughts, or some other excuse, you made a proposal for a protocol. You accepted it the moment you pressed the "SEND" button. (This is the mailbox rule of contract law.)

If you wish to win any respect from me at this point, your response should include the exact text of the email, along with headers.

Do not tell me what you meant. Do not tell me what you said afterwards. The unadulterated, unembellished email will speak for itself.

This is your last chance as far as I'm concerned. I was skeptical of Kramer's position and yours, but the evidence, so far, points toward you as the wrongful party in these failed negotiations.

 

[Z]

Re: Re: Quick Reply to One Point by DevilsAdvocate

Well at least you hate to say it. We could of course say that there is the possibility that everyone here has not been truthful except for Kramer who has already been established as having been untruthful with at least three statements.




This assumption is valid for the sake of your argument, but in reality I was sold on the GSIC before hearing the manufacturers claims.




I personally don't accept the GSIC manufacturers explanation as sensible. I personally think the effect is due to an alteration of the polycarbonate substrate. I have no scientific basis for my belief, it is simply what makes sense to me.

So you're saying, this chip somehow affects a physical alteration in the plastic bottom of the CD? Does it work the same on CD-Rs? For surely you are aware that a CD-R has a spiral-groove polycarb layer, rather than a pitted polycarb layer...

And that's pretty dangerous radiation, that can alter the BOTTOM of a CD from the TOP of the player, through layers of metals and plastics (without refraction or distortion), to PERMANENTLY ALTER your CDs...

Yeah, I can tell you have no scientific basis for your beliefs. But that's OK - you also can't tell confusion for lies, and are at a total loss about cursing.

I know you for what you are. And now everyone can know, as well. Thanks.

 

[Z]

Re: Wellfed's Last Chance As Far As I'm Concerned

I assure you that I'm perfectly, and professionally, serious. You need to understand that I am concerned only with the text of the email that you sent personally to Kramer. Unless you made it clear within that email that you were just joking around, having idle thoughts, or some other excuse, you made a proposal for a protocol. You accepted it the moment you pressed the "SEND" button. (This is the mailbox rule of contract law.)

If you wish to win any respect from me at this point, your response should include the exact text of the email, along with headers.

Do not tell me what you meant. Do not tell me what you said afterwards. The unadulterated, unembellished email will speak for itself.

This is your last chance as far as I'm concerned. I was skeptical of Kramer's position and yours, but the evidence, so far, points toward you as the wrongful party in these failed negotiations.

Yeah, just look at the heading, Welf... When you put 'Proposal' on the top of an e-mail, that means you are submitting a proposal - a proposal that they accepted.

So this nonsense you're doing now is waffling about.

Typical, though - disappointing, and typical.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Quick Reply to One Point by DevilsAdvocate

Well at least you hate to say it. We could of course say that there is the possibility that everyone here has not been truthful except for Kramer who has already been established as having been untruthful with at least three statements.

...snip..

It has not been established in this thread. When will you post the information that you asked to be asked for?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

PianoTeacher said:

As we have established, the GSIC claims to alter the disk physically, and permanently. After that alteration, there are normal expectations that changes in the disk can indeed alter the sound: nothing paranormal.

Note the bold....


There certainly are not any such expectations! ( by anyone who understands how CD audio works )

Since we haven't been reminded of this for a while, here you go..


A CD does not contain sound. It contains data.

Any alteration of that disk, that changes the value of the data, as it is read, would only result in CRC errors and skips if the errors could not be corrected. If the errors can be corrected, then the resulting sound will be indistinguishable from that of an unaltered disk.


Knowing how a CD works is all we need to know, to also know that the device cannot do what the manufacturers claim.


However, if Wellfed ( or anyone ) can indeed distinguish ( beyond chance ) between CD's that have been exposed to the device and those that have not, then he indeed posseses some paranormal ability that we cannot account for, and would certainly be entitled to the prize if he could demonstrate that ability..

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Wellfed's Last Chance As Far As I'm Concerned

I assure you that I'm perfectly, and professionally, serious. You need to understand that I am concerned only with the text of the email that you sent personally to Kramer. Unless you made it clear within that email that you were just joking around, having idle thoughts, or some other excuse, you made a proposal for a protocol. You accepted it the moment you pressed the "SEND" button. (This is the mailbox rule of contract law.)

If you wish to win any respect from me at this point, your response should include the exact text of the email, along with headers.

Do not tell me what you meant. Do not tell me what you said afterwards. The unadulterated, unembellished email will speak for itself.

This is your last chance as far as I'm concerned. I was skeptical of Kramer's position and yours, but the evidence, so far, points toward you as the wrongful party in these failed negotiations.

I posted the entire content of my email immediately below my post where I stated that you can't be serious. I used the JREF Forum subject line to display the original subject line contents of the email in question.

 

[Wellfed]

I didn't jump the gun in assuming it was an official protocol submission, and I did NOT copy it from the forum and hand it to Randi.

The Howard Protocol came to me as promised, at the time I was told it would come, via email, which is where all of our official correspondence took place. Only informal discussions take place in the forum. Mr. Anda was anxious to get a response from Randi on it, too. There was absolutely no indication that it was anything other than what Anda told me it was.

Let me put it another way: Anda worked for a good amount of time with one or two forum members on devising the Howard Protocol. Here's my question:

Did any of those who worked on it with him, finished it with him, and were aware that it was being submitted for approval have ANY notion that said submission was anything BUT "official"?

The first time I heard this fairy tail about it not having really been an official protocol was after I told him it had been accepted.

End of story.

I never claimed that you copied it off the Forum. You requested that I copy it off the Forum and send it to you.

I separated Steven's content from my own with a clear division. Everything after this division were my own comments. Here is the content of the email with Steven's protocol edited out for brevity. His protocol was copied and pasted above the division marking in my original correspondence.

----------------end-----------------

This is Mr. Howard’s proposal exactly as he posted it.



I later responded to him with some minor changes I would expect.



If memory serves me, I asked that the 11th disc he mentions be a non GSIC treated reference disc that I could swap in and out to compare with the subject disc at will.



I will review my comments to him on the Forum to see if there is anything I am forgetting



We will need to establish the amount of time necessary to complete this test.



We will need to discuss whether burned copies or original CD’s are to be used. I haven’t established an opinion on the subject myself.



If possible, I think I would prefer that T2 leave the room as I make each identification.



A contingency plan for tube failure will need to be implemented.



I will get back to you via email after I’ve re-read the Forum discussion about Steven’s proposal. Steven, and I, had a mild disagreement over a few parameters. I don’t think that my requests altered the integrity of the test. His commentary was to the effect of “If the device makes such a big improvement you shouldn’t need the changes”, this element of the discussion went no further.



It is my hope that we are back on track with this process, I sense you are of the same mind.

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Re: Re: Quick Reply to One Point by DevilsAdvocate

It has not been established in this thread. When will you post the information that you asked to be asked for?

I am positive that it has. Take a look at my posts on the upper half of page 20 in this thread. I will get you the promised information within a few days at the latest. I only intend to offer some representative examples, not the totality of the matter.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Quick Reply to One Point by DevilsAdvocate

I only intend to offer some representative examples, not the totality of the matter.

I strongly suggest that you reconsider. If you have evidence, present all of it.

 

[Beleth]

And yet another Challenge that started off so promisingly turns into nothing but a he-said-she-said shouting match.

When exactly did brinksmanship become more important than discovering the truth in this matter? Don't tell me it hasn't, because it's plain to everyone that it has.

How utterly useless.

 

[jmercer]

When exactly did brinksmanship become more important than discovering the truth in this matter? Don't tell me it hasn't, because it's plain to everyone that it has.

How utterly useless.

Beleth, I respect you, and often enjoy your posts. I certainly was impressed by your FAQ... however, please don't lump me in with "everyone", because I don't agree with your assessment. I am of the firm opinion that Mr. Anda made a rash decision in applying for the Challenge here, motivated by the stinging ridicule of his peers at Audio Asylum and Randi's commentary .

From Mr. Anda's Application
This device was refered to as a "MAJOR SWINDLE IN OPERATION" and as a "FRAUD" in a recent www.randi.org newsletter. My review of this device at Audio Asylum is also a topic of discussion at the www.randi.org discussion site where I am ridiculed for claiming to hear an effect using the GSIC. The claim to be tested under your Challenge is my ability to detect a difference between a GSIC-treated disc from a non-treated disc through simple listening tests.

I also believe that once he realized he couldn't succeed at the Challenge and vindicate himself, he also realized that he'd placed himself in a position where withdrawal of his claim would mean further (possibly irreparable) public loss of his credibility.

Finally, I believe that all of Mr. Anda's gyrations (documented in the Application thread and summed up in my previous post) were attempts on his part to delay and derail his testing. I believe he did so in the hopes that interest here would subside, or that JREF would close his file in a way that he could absolve himself from failure, if not blame. He succeeded in getting his file closed; he failed in absolving himself, as multiple posters here have indicated.

If there was any brinkmanship involved, it was Mr. Anda's efforts to push Kramer and JREF over the brink of patience so he could escape the consequences of his rash and public committment.

This is how I see it, and I do not agree with your assessment.

(Edited to clarify some phrasing)

 

[LTC8K6]

Why don't you just crack a GSIC open and see if what's inside impresses you, Wellfed? It's only $10, after all.

The very idea that anyone would believe this item does anything at all, let alone spend money on it, let alone waste any more money and time testing it, is just about unbelievable to me.

It would be unbelievable had I not seen similar before....

 

[Beleth]

I'm talking about this latest "You agreed to this protocol" / "No I didn't" / "Yes you did, here's your e-mail to prove it" / "No I didn't, that's not the entire e-mail I sent you" (rule 8).

I don't know what was said in e-mail, and frankly I don't care. The only two who will ever know the truth are Michael and KRAMER, and unless one of them blinks, the rest of us will never know. So it's useless for the rest of us to comment on it.

Arguing over it only distracts us from the point of the the Challenge. So it really discourages me when I see such an argument happen.

Michael wants to not discuss this until October. So be it. Let's all be a little more mature than we have been and let this sleeping dog lie until then.

All of us. Including you, Michael. And you, KRAMER.
No more until October.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why don't you just crack a GSIC open and see if what's inside impresses you, Wellfed? It's only $10, after all.

The very idea that anyone would believe this item does anything at all, let alone spend money on it, let alone waste any more money and time testing it, is just about unbelievable to me.

It would be unbelievable had I not seen similar before....

I highly doubt that Wellfed or anyone here is qualified to identify the circuitry necessary to realign the angular polarity of an audio CD.. That green wafer in your pic could have millions of transistors in it..

 

[jj]

I highly doubt that Wellfed or anyone here is qualified to identify the circuitry necessary to realign the angular polarity of an audio CD.. That green wafer in your pic could have millions of transistors in it..

"angular polarity"

Say WHAT?

E_TELL_ME_YOU_ARE_KIDDING_PLEASE

Diogenes, is that line from their white paper? Oh. My head hurts and it's not just the sinus infection speaking.

 

[Wellfed]

...

This is how I see it, and I do not agree with your assessment.

This is not how I see it. I see the matter as simply as I have stated it. I went into the Challenge with confidence that I could prove my claim. This protocol was rejected for acceptable reasons and I was fine with the matter. I then ran into someone that reminded my of my upcoming reunion. This coupled with increasing anxiety over the notoriety potential of the Challenge prompted me to write a polite request to Kramer asking that my claim be put on hold until August. Since there was no particular effort being expended in designing a new protocol, other than my own efforts which were largely ignored, and also having viewed the Challenge FAQ which noted the customary timetable, I didn't think my REQUEST a big deal. It proved to be apparently. My time preference for testing was just slightly over 4 months distant, Kramer told me it was 6 months distant. I should have acquired a clue right then and there as to what I'd be up against. I am not so quick sometimes. Some wrangling ensued and I found that this wrangling affected my listening perception to such degree that I would HAVE to allow for some time to elapse after settling on a protocol. I erred on the side of caution when I stated that I wanted 3 months after the protocol was established to return to my "groove". This reality was deemed a joke by Kramer. More wrangling ensued, and near that time Steven Howard suggested a new protocol, I decided to call Kramer and see what we could find for a compromise. We had a very pleasant conversation and I believe we both thought we had worked out a solution. It turns out we hadn't. Some more wrangling occured, this time it turned more vicious, Kramer pulled his little "I waltzed into Randi's office with the Steven Howard protocol" bit and the two established it as "official". I had never agreed to this protocol without amendment. I was so incensed over him stating that I had agreed to the protocol and the spirit in which he presented the matter that I went on a terror around here for a few days, then Kramer did the same, recruiting someone to supplant me and stating that he might close my file because I was paranoid and delusional. While I regret some of the comments I made on my rant, I considered myself restrained for the most part. I believe to this day that Kramer's behavior during his rant included over the top measures and were foul play. I lost all confidence in the process, but somehow things settled down and Gr8wight stepped in to assist me with refining the Howard protocol to match my claimed ability. He was most helpful and it looked like we were about to make some progress. Kramer rejected certain aspects of the Gr8wight protocol effort and I was working on amendments when the **** hit the fan two days ago. Kramer made two blatant lies about my recent efforts and I decided enough was enough, I have much better things to do until October. Unfortunately this is the short version of our little saga.

I don't know if it was a coincidence, or not, but in hindsight I find it most curious that Kramer committed his most egregious acts just prior to my scheduled self-tests. I have my suspicions about the timing unfortunately. If the JREF Forum faithful need to believe that I somehow used Kramer's faults to get out of a test that I never "really" wanted to come to pass in this first place because of doubts they imagine I possess, well, all I can say is they have the right to any delusion they are willing to accept.

I will continue to document some of the misdeeds until tomorrow night when I plan to give it all a rest at this site. I will monitor the discussion for a while and then slip into oblivion until October. There are many here that I have greatly enjoyed meeting. All here that have behaved in a civil manner I thank. This includes you, jmercer. I have the utmost respect for well behaved individuals, especially when opinions run contrary to one another.

 

[jmercer]

I'm talking about this latest "You agreed to this protocol" / "No I didn't" / "Yes you did, here's your e-mail to prove it" / "No I didn't, that's not the entire e-mail I sent you" (rule 8).

I don't know what was said in e-mail, and frankly I don't care. The only two who will ever know the truth are Michael and KRAMER, and unless one of them blinks, the rest of us will never know. So it's useless for the rest of us to comment on it.

With all respect, Beleth, Mr. Anda posted the entire email here in this thread twice to establish the truth by "proving" Kramer lied about it... so everyone has full and unabridged access to that part of the protocol exchange to form their opinions. You can read it yourself, if you wish.

Gulliver - who appears qualifed to make this judgement - has stated that the email posted by Mr. Anda constituted a submission of protocol to JREF, who then accepted it... making it binding. Mr. Anda's subsequent dismissal of the protocol was a breach of contract at that point. (Again, according to Gulliver.)

Arguing over it only distracts us from the point of the the Challenge. So it really discourages me when I see such an argument happen.

Your frustration is shared, and I agree that arguing is a distraction from the Challenge. That doesn't mean it's not appropriate at times - even if it is distracting.

Michael wants to not discuss this until October. So be it. Let's all be a little more mature than we have been and let this sleeping dog lie until then.

All of us. Including you, Michael. And you, KRAMER.
No more until October.

Good advice. Enough has been said, I think.

 

[Wellfed]

I highly doubt that Wellfed or anyone here is qualified to identify the circuitry necessary to realign the angular polarity of an audio CD.. That green wafer in your pic could have millions of transistors in it..

My auditory perception is the final arbiter as far as the matter concerns me. Color me impressed.

 

[Wellfed]

...

Gulliver - who appears qualifed to make this judgement - has stated that the email posted by Mr. Anda constituted a submission of protocol to JREF, who then accepted it... making it binding. Mr. Anda's subsequent dismissal of the protocol was a breach of contract at that point. (Again, according to Gulliver.)

...

I am not sure if Gulliver was working off the complete email and also chose to simply edit it a convenient point or if he simply believed what he posted WAS my complete correspondence to Kramer. I'm a bit mystified. I hope he writes back and clarifies the matter.