Audio Critic

[Sherman Bay]

When a tester wants to see a certain result, there is a powerful force working to convince him that he has seen that result. That is one of the reasons that when a scientist publishes a new finding, the scientific community requires that his findings be reproducible by others. Others who have not invested years of work and research, and thousands or even millions of dollars, and untold prestige. That is, others who don't have a personal stake in the success or failure of the first scientist's findings.

Wellput. Wellfed, onceuponatime, back in page NN of this thread, I promised to tell you what my theory was as to why/how you detected a sonic difference in the CDs. I also wanted to wait until after you had done a DBT whether self, preliminary or final. Since that doesn't seem to be happening soon, I'm glad BPSCG said it first. It is pretty much my analysis of what is going on in your mind. "When a tester wants to see a certain result, there is a powerful [psychological] force working to convince him that he has seen that result." Double-blind testing was developed to remove that possibility and restore reason where there was once only biased, self-deceptive opinion.

Think about it.

 

[Gr8wight]

Really Bodhi, you don't know what it means to me to repeatedly hear your sanely worded, emotionally controlled, posts.

Do you think the test I did today was proper enough? I'd simply like to do this same test 9 or more times. The only problem is using discs that I am not positive will respond to treatment. I would determine that the test disc was either treated, untreated/undetermined. Here's how I would interpret the data

a) a treated assessment would be positive if the test GSIC proves to be the active chip
b) a treated assessment would be negative if the test GSIC proves to be the dummy chip
c) an untreated/undetermined assessment would be positive if the test GSIC proves to be the dummy chip
d) I would throw out the results of an untreated/undetermined assessment if the test GSIC proves to be the active chip

This actually would be a great training aid.

Michael,
I disagree with your four interpretations. There are only two possible outcomes of the test protocol you are using.
1) The CD is treated.
2) The CD is not treated.

There is no "undetermined" outcome, and so there can be no undetermined choice available to the test subject. These are the four possible results:

a) Subject guessed treated-CD was treated=hit
b) Subject guessed untreated-CD was treated=miss
c) Subject guessed treated-CD was untreated=miss
d) Subject guessed untreated-CD was untreated=hit
"undetermined"=subject cannot hear the difference=subject guessed untreated

At some point, you will have to involve a third person so your test can be properly double blind.

 

[Wellfed]

Here's something that just came to me, and I'm wondering if it has been suggested already:

...

No one has suggested this previously to the best of my knowledge. I have to admit though that I have not read all of the discourse.

I will consider your suggestion, can you tell me the nuances of what you think this would prove?

I only get myself in trouble by making promises if I don't end up keeping them. I hope you appreciate that in my heart of hearts I really would love to accomodate the sincere requests of the civil.

 

[Wellfed]

You have utterly and completely failed to prove any of this.

As you can probably tell, I do have true respect for you.

Without a verified test, #1 can not be proven to your satisfaction. If you have some pull with JREF, get me tested.

What would it take to prove point #2 to you? I am quite willing to work with you on this. Lies are lies, and spin is spin. I documented in the upper half of page 20 where Kramer told two outright lies. You dismissed them as "rhetoric". Are you saying that they were "white lies" and of little to no consequence or are you saying they weren't lies at all? The context of these lies is pretty apparent. Kramer wanted to make me look bad. Have you asked yourself the question as to why he wanted to make me look bad? What is the reason he would stoop so low? Didn't I already have the appearance of woo?

It is one thing for him to twist the intent of my communications to make me look bad, I do consider this practice to be bad form and deceptive, but it is entirely another matter to fabricate lies to make me look bad. I don't know if it was due to a pathological condition or whether it was a deliberate deception, all I know is that it exhibited bad faith to the extreme. You will have to draw your own inference as to why he would do this considering my declaration that if I didn't find good faith negotiations soon I would suspend negotiations so that I could fully enjoy a prime period in my life.

Regarding #3, again a verified test is the only to determine if you are correct in saying that I am deluded. My experience proves otherwise.

 

[Wellfed]

Wellput. Wellfed, onceuponatime, back in page NN of this thread, I promised to tell you what my theory was as to why/how you detected a sonic difference in the CDs. I also wanted to wait until after you had done a DBT whether self, preliminary or final. Since that doesn't seem to be happening soon, I'm glad BPSCG said it first. It is pretty much my analysis of what is going on in your mind. "When a tester wants to see a certain result, there is a powerful [psychological] force working to convince him that he has seen that result." Double-blind testing was developed to remove that possibility and restore reason where there was once only biased, self-deceptive opinion.

Think about it.

I assure you I HAVE thought about it. This topic received significant debate at Audio Asylum before I submitted my JREF Challenge application. When I did my limited test yesterday I didn't have any motivation to hear the effect one way or the other. I simply wanted to make the correct identification. I chose correctly. More trials need occur before any scientific conclusion can be drawn, but I very clearly discerned the effect on a disc that I had not known would respond positively to the treatment. I estimate that roughly 70%-80% of discs respond in a detectable manner. On some the effect is slight, on others it is more pronounced. I am fully persuaded, from listening, that this device provides the stated benefit. It now comes down to proving this with testing. Perhaps LostAngeles will prove this, personally I don't think it is likely to happen with her testing.

 

[69dodge]

I recommend that your wife flip a coin to decide whether to treat the disc. I mean that literally. And then really do what the coin says, even if the sequence doesn't seem random to her. People aren't very good at making random choices without some sort of aid like a coin flip.

You don't actually need a third person, if you have no contact at all with your wife between when she flips the coin and when you make your decision.

It's ok to have three choices if you want (treated, untreated, can't tell), but all "can't tell"s should be discarded, as IXP explained.

 

[prewitt81]

Originally posted by Wellfed
I will consider your suggestion, can you tell me the nuances of what you think this would prove?

I probably was not completely clear in what I was trying to accomplish. My point is you would not know when in the song the GSIC chip was placed on the equipment to "upgrade" the CD. You would just be listening and, since you claim you can detect the difference, you would be trying to determine at what point the sound "changes".

 

[Wellfed]

Michael,
I disagree with your four interpretations. There are only two possible outcomes of the test protocol you are using.
1) The CD is treated.
2) The CD is not treated.

There is no "undetermined" outcome, and so there can be no undetermined choice available to the test subject. These are the four possible results:

a) Subject guessed treated-CD was treated=hit
b) Subject guessed untreated-CD was treated=miss
c) Subject guessed treated-CD was untreated=miss
d) Subject guessed untreated-CD was untreated=hit
"undetermined"=subject cannot hear the difference=subject guessed untreated

At some point, you will have to involve a third person so your test can be properly double blind.

Thanks for your feedback Gr8wight. I think this test is useful, but obviously not without its flaws. It does allow for wrong determinations. If I were to determine that a disc was treated with an active GSIC when in fact the dummy chip was used I would have failed. I think that a failed round is a pretty reliable indicator that a placebo effect was at work, for that round anyway. This methodology simply allows for me to test with the discs at my disposal. I do expect to do a proper test at some point. Many here don't expect that out of me. Oh well, I continue to try my best.

 

[Vikram]

Mr. Anda,

As jmercer pointed out, NO ONE here agrees with your claim that Kramer lied to you. NO ONE. Please understand that. NO ONE.

Most of the posters here are critical of the JREF when it does something wrong. For heaven's sake, there is actually a thread called, "KRAMER, you are the wrong person for the job" in which people have aired their grievances. But NO ONE AT ALL agrees with your persistent (and quite frankly irritating) claim that the JREF has lied to you and deceived you.

I said this before and I'll say this again - if you wish to portray the JREF as dishonest simply to save face, it WILL NOT WORK HERE. We have all read the communication between you and the JREF.

By claiming what you are claiming, YOU are the one who is lying and being deceitful.

 

[Wellfed]

...

By claiming what you are claiming, YOU are the one who is lying and being deceitful.

Can you prove your assertion? I can prove my own.

I'll view what you come up with tomorrow.

 

[Winny]

Can you prove your assertion? I can prove my own.

I'll view what you come up with tomorrow.

Michael,

FWIW, I don't believe you are lying and deceitful, but you sure do waffle needlessly.

I don't believe that Kramer was lying and deceitful, but he sure can be abrasive.

Had you been sincere in attempting to be tested, it would have happened by now. Your endless prevarication on what can only be called minutiae has made sure that the process stalled. I don't know whether your intention was to avoid testing, but by waffling the way you do, that's all that was ever going to happen.

Had Kramer been a little more forgiving and a little less harsh, maybe these negotiations would still be going on, but I seriously doubt that we would be any closer to a resolution.

I think that this thread is a great place for a few good recipes.

Winny

 

[Vikram]

Can you prove your assertion? I can prove my own.

I'll view what you come up with tomorrow.

Simple.

1) Kramer did not lie.
2) You are insisting that he did.

Ergo...

 

[BPSCG]

I agree, BPSCG is a perfect gentlemen, and a quite sensible one at that.

Thank you, but even if I had the personality of a baboon - and there are those who would take the "for" side in a debate regarding that proposition - it would be irrelevant to your test.

You acknowledge elsewhere that you "haven't tested the GSIC as hard as BPSCG suggests."

Why not? Why are you wasting your time - which you claim is so limited - with this endless train of posts, when you could be doing a proper, rigorous test? Why not decide to put the forum aside for two whole days and find the time to do your test as I suggest? There's no law that says that you have to respond to every post the same day you get it, or even respond to every post at all. Turn your computer off for a day and find an hour to do a proper blind/double-blind test. Crash your hypothesis against the brick wall. You seem sure that it would survive such a test; so why not do it?

If you can't find the time or inclination to do a relatively easy test that would reduce or eliminate the possibility of unintended user bias, how can we take seriously your demands that JREF accept your challenge, a challenge that would demand far stricter constraints?

You state:

I have listened to its effect for 4 1/2 months now however, and I am fully persuaded that it does, in fact, provide the claimed benefit.

Are you fully persuaded that there is no unintentional psychological user bias, that there is no possibility that you only think you hear it because you want to hear it? It happens all the time, to reputable, professional researchers. Why should you be immune? Professional researchers do tests to minimize or eliminate that bias before announcing "Behold!" to the world. Why shouldn't you?

 

[Sherman Bay]

Are you fully persuaded that there is no unintentional psychological user bias, that there is no possibility that you only think you hear it because you want to hear it? It happens all the time, to reputable, professional researchers. Why should you be immune? Professional researchers do tests to minimize or eliminate that bias before announcing "Behold!" to the world. Why shouldn't you?

Hear, hear.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have to insist in that this needs to be as simple as possible, you will want to have as few variables as possible. Instead of multiple CDs and the used and new GSIC chips, why dont you use just two identical CDs, ask someone to apply the GSIC to one of them and then mark one blue and the other magenta. Only that person will know if the blue or the magenta was treated.

Then, take your time, listen to one, then the other and decide which was treated. Lets suppose that you believe the blue was treated.

Next step, someone will change the CDs without you knowing which is playing. You will annotate "blue" or "magenta" just by their particular sound. The person changing the CDs will annotate which is sounding too.

Please note that this is all that is claimed and all that you need to proof (first to yourself or course).

After, say, 20 attempts, compare your list with the real one.

You will know then.

 

[Wellfed]

Michael,

FWIW, I don't believe you are lying and deceitful, but you sure do waffle needlessly.

With all due respect it has not been established that I waffle. Please prove your assertion.

I don't believe that Kramer was lying and deceitful, but he sure can be abrasive.

I can.

Had you been sincere in attempting to be tested, it would have happened by now. Your endless prevarication on what can only be called minutiae has made sure that the process stalled. I don't know whether your intention was to avoid testing, but by waffling the way you do, that's all that was ever going to happen.

Had Kramer been a little more forgiving and a little less harsh, maybe these negotiations would still be going on, but I seriously doubt that we would be any closer to a resolution.

I was and am sincere in what can NOW be described as my crusade to be tested.

It really is interesting that so many perceptions here are at 180 degree variance to the truth.

Perhaps had I been a little less forgiving and a little more harsh the negotiations would have been successful.

I think that this thread is a great place for a few good recipes.

...

Are we talking brownies or quickie protocols here?

 

[BPSCG]

I have to insist in that this needs to be as simple as possible, you will want to have as few variables as possible. Instead of multiple CDs and the used and new GSIC chips, why dont you use just two identical CDs, ask someone to apply the GSIC to one of them and then mark one blue and the other magenta. Only that person will know if the blue or the magenta was treated.

Then, take your time, listen to one, then the other and decide which was treated. Lets suppose that you believe the blue was treated.

Next step, someone will change the CDs without you knowing which is playing. You will annotate "blue" or "magenta" just by their particular sound. The person changing the CDs will annotate which is sounding too.

Please note that this is all that is claimed and all that you need to proof (first to yourself or course).

After, say, 20 attempts, compare your list with the real one.

You will know then.

This is very similar to my proposed test (I don't blame you for not wanting to read through twenty-odd pages of postings to discover it...).It seems to me it should take no more time than the test Wellfed's actually did with his wife, be much simpler to execute, require only one GSIC chip instead of two, and be endlessly repeatable if necessary, without having to buy additional chips or CD's (other than buying one CD to leave untreated).

 

[Wellfed]

Thank you, but even if I had the personality of a baboon - and there are those who would take the "for" side in a debate regarding that proposition - it would be irrelevant to your test.

You acknowledge elsewhere that you "haven't tested the GSIC as hard as BPSCG suggests."

Your acknowledgement is correct.

Why not? Why are you wasting your time - which you claim is so limited - with this endless train of posts, when you could be doing a proper, rigorous test? Why not decide to put the forum aside for two whole days and find the time to do your test as I suggest?

I do not consider revealing JREF's deceitful practices to be a waste of my time.

There's no law that says that you have to respond to every post the same day you get it, or even respond to every post at all.

They keep trying to attack my credibility and defend a liar, what the heck would you do in a situation like that?

Memorable quotes from Napoleon Dynamite

Turn your computer off for a day and find an hour to do a proper blind/double-blind test. Crash your hypothesis against the brick wall. You seem sure that it would survive such a test; so why not do it?

I will presumably do so when I get the inclination.

If you can't find the time or inclination to do a relatively easy test that would reduce or eliminate the possibility of unintended user bias, how can we take seriously your demands that JREF accept your challenge, a challenge that would demand far stricter constraints?

The JREF already accepted my application. They have now waffled and rejected my claim.

You state: Are you fully persuaded that there is no unintentional psychological user bias, that there is no possibility that you only think you hear it because you want to hear it? It happens all the time, to reputable, professional researchers. Why should you be immune? Professional researchers do tests to minimize or eliminate that bias before announcing "Behold!" to the world. Why shouldn't you?

I am persuaded because I hear the difference, not just think I hear the difference. I have no need to run a DBT to make my assertion. It is not made without confidence. Boy, one would think that I am just the kind of guy you folks would love to see tested. Let's see if we can make this happen.

 

[jmercer]

As you can probably tell, I do have true respect for you.

Without a verified test, #1 can not be proven to your satisfaction. If you have some pull with JREF, get me tested.

What would it take to prove point #2 to you? I am quite willing to work with you on this. Lies are lies, and spin is spin. I documented in the upper half of page 20 where Kramer told two outright lies. You dismissed them as "rhetoric". Are you saying that they were "white lies" and of little to no consequence or are you saying they weren't lies at all? The context of these lies is pretty apparent. Kramer wanted to make me look bad. Have you asked yourself the question as to why he wanted to make me look bad? What is the reason he would stoop so low? Didn't I already have the appearance of woo?

It is one thing for him to twist the intent of my communications to make me look bad, I do consider this practice to be bad form and deceptive, but it is entirely another matter to fabricate lies to make me look bad. I don't know if it was due to a pathological condition or whether it was a deliberate deception, all I know is that it exhibited bad faith to the extreme. You will have to draw your own inference as to why he would do this considering my declaration that if I didn't find good faith negotiations soon I would suspend negotiations so that I could fully enjoy a prime period in my life.

Regarding #3, again a verified test is the only to determine if you are correct in saying that I am deluded. My experience proves otherwise.

Regarding # 1 - I suggest you make arrangements with either CSICOP or some other skeptic organization that does tests, because JREF is closed to you for at least 12 months. There may be a local organization in your area willing to work with you on this. Published results from another skeptic organization would go a long way toward justifying your claims, but remember - even scientific claims are re-tested by independent groups to ensure accuracy.

Regarding # 2 - If all of the emails have been accurately disclosed, I don't see how a further dialogue could affect things. Unless you have further information, we are at a standstill.

Regarding # 3 - Personal experiences are incredibly powerful persuasions for individuals. I know; I'm still struggling with my views concerning God, and trying to reconcile my normally skeptical viewpoint with an apparently contradictory series of powerful personal experiences.

Having said that, I do not - and never have - considered my experiences as proving God's existence. I believe that my experiences indicate that God exists, but I recognized that I am - as are all of humanity - perfectly capable of misinterpreting these kinds of experiences and assigning them significance that doesn't actually exist.

If I were you, I'd not be citing my experience as proving anything until a truly objective double-blind test is performed. You are staking your remaining crediblity on a position that is essentially based on your own subjective experiences.

 

[webfusion]

The LostAngeles Challenge goes forward...

Perhaps LostAngeles will prove this, personally I don't think it is likely to happen with her testing.

Why not?

Golden Sound is offering a consumer device, that their advertising and descriptions say is going to improve everyone's CD/DVD/SACD:

"The sound of the upgraded disc more closely resembles the sound of a remastered version, with less congestion, more information, greater dynamic range and more air."

and

"The disc upgrade is permanent and the upgraded disc will sound better even when played on other machines. "

Why are you, Mr Anda, the only one that would be able to hear this? Is this an example of the "Vortex Effect" that is only audible in your Fargo Sound Asylum?

If I went into WallMart and bought a toaster oven, you can be darn sure my wife would expect it to make toast.

I expect LostAngeles should be able to hear the GSIC upgrade, as she claims (unless, of course, the GSIC is a fraud! Because we assume she is not a fraud and we also assume JREF is an honest outside observer that fairly administers a proper test).

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

By the way, Wellfed, you stated:

"In the meantime I think my current application is PERFECTLY valid."

This is wrong. Your application has been rejected.
Didn't you get an eMail from KRAMER about that?
If not, I strongly suggest you write again to him and attempt to confirm. Hey, what's one more eMail?

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

One more item of note here: You have challenged us --
"With all due respect it has not been established that I waffle. Please prove your assertion."

"Waffle" is used in this context as a verb transitive, that means "To speak, write, or act evasively about."

Here is one example of this from you, as proof.
I don't have the inclination to offer more, but I am sure there are others here who might wish to provide them, if you prod further.

"I will presumably do so when I get the inclination."

25-page thread, and counting.
Sheesh. Who woulda thunk it?