Audio Critic

[IXP]

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.

No, this protocol is not useful. Anyone can get 10 out of 10 right just by guessing untreated/undetermined each time. The ones where it is treated are thrown out and the ones where it is not are counted as hits. So just keep guessing ntreated/undtermined and eventually you get 10 hits with no misses.

If you are going use an undetermined category, you must specifically say undetermined and throw it out whether or not the GSIC was used.

IXP

p.s. Was your correct identification a "treated" or an "untreated/untermined"?

 

[jmercer]

Was it determined that lying was acceptable practice in protocol negotiations? If so, why?

No.

However, you have failed to show anyone at JREF was lying to you as you claimed they were. There were some poorly worded communications, some miscommunications and some impatient - perhaps even rude - exchanges - from both parties, but that is all.

There are credible outspoken critics of JREF in these forums. There are also credible people here who are particularly critical of Kramer in a vocal way as well. If you showed Kramer or JREF to be lying, they would post volumes in support of you. The posts in these forums would skyrocket in your support, and you would find yourself championed by many.

This is not happening because - regardless of how they feel about Kramer and JREF's demeanor toward applicants - the critics can see there were no lies involved on Kramer's or JREF's part.

NOT ONE PERSON has agreed with your assertion that Kramer lied to you or created a pattern of deceit.

You are dissembling to protect yourself and falsely maligning others to do so. Rather than justifying your position, your actions are having the exact opposite effect you had hoped for by further diminishing your remaining credibility here.

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

JREF's representative has closed your application, publicly, here in these forums. If JREF reverses it's decision - certainly within their power to do - then you will again have a valid application.

Until and unless that occurs, you do not have an active application. This is the reality of the situation, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it.

 

[Sherman Bay]

What's a maroon?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="what+a+maroon"&btnG=Google+Search

 

[alfaniner]

Well, I just did it this afternoon.

One trial only, my identification was correct. I will presumably do more trials this coming weekend.

It was actually a pretty interesting experience.

'Bout damn time...


P.S.

Q. How do you keep a maroon busy?

A. Answer...

 

[Wellfed]

No, this protocol is not useful. Anyone can get 10 out of 10 right just by guessing untreated/undetermined each time. The ones where it is treated are thrown out and the ones where it is not are counted as hits. So just keep guessing ntreated/undtermined and eventually you get 10 hits with no misses.

If you are going use an undetermined category, you must specifically say undetermined and throw it out whether or not the GSIC was used.

IXP

p.s. Was your correct identification a "treated" or an "untreated/untermined"?

Thanks for the analysis IXP. I assume you realize this is simply an excercise for my own benefit using readily available discs. I wouldn't submit this sort of thing for protocol approval to JREF obviously.

My identification was that the disc had been treated with an active GSIC, this proved to be the correct determination.

 

[jmercer]

My identification was that the disc had been treated with an active GSIC, this proved to be the correct determination.

Predictable success, given that you are now safe from having to provide proof under strict protocol conditions with independent witnesses.

 

[IXP]

Thanks for the analysis IXP. I assume you realize this is simply an excercise for my own benefit using readily available discs. I wouldn't submit this sort of thing for protocol approval to JREF obviously.

My identification was that the disc had been treated with an active GSIC, this proved to be the correct determination.

Of course I realize that. But I still question why you would want to waste time on a test that is obviously biased in favor of passing. There are four possibilities with your protocol:

1. disc treated, you guess treated (success)
2. disc treated, you guess untreated/undetermined (discarded)
3. disc not treated, you guess treated (failure)
4. disc not treated, you guess untreated/undetermined. (success)

You fail on only on 25% of tests if everything is random, and succeed on 50%. It may make you feel good, but it is not good testing procedure.

Please try any of the protocols suggested by people here on the forum.

IXP

 

[Wellfed]

'Bout damn time...


P.S.

Q. How do you keep a maroon busy?

A. Answer...

Bear in mind I had NO obligation to do ANY self-testing. I agreed to do this testing at the behest of JREF Forum participants as a gesture of good will. I did not feel the need to do this personally, not that it isn't a good idea.

I personally know that the GSIC alters the performance of compact discs. That fact seems to scare JREF into taking such drastic measures as lies, deceits, and obstinancy with negotiations to avoid having me tested. The fact of the matter is, it's sick.

 

[jmercer]

I personally know that the GSIC alters the performance of compact discs. That fact seems to scare JREF into taking such drastic measures as lies, deceits, and obstinancy with negotiations to avoid having me tested. The fact of the matter is, it's sick.

Mr. Anda... you are mistaken in all regards.

1) The GSIC cannot alter the performance of CD's.

2) JREF has not lied to you or deceived you. Obstinancy is, of course, a subjective opinion and is dependent upon one's perspective.

3) If you truly believe the GSIC altered the CD's, then you are deluding yourself.

 

[BPSCG]

Bear in mind I had NO obligation to do ANY self-testing.

That's correct. Still a good idea, though.

I agreed to do this testing at the behest of JREF Forum participants as a gesture of good will.

You don't want to do your own (double) blind testing to gratify the JREF forum participants. Very few of us, if any, believe the thing does what is claimed, and your running a (double) blind test on yourself at home isn't going to change any opinions on that score. That's not why you want to test the thing before you make your challenge.

You want to do your own (double) blind test to make sure you haven't deceived yourself. Face it: you want to hear an improvement in your audio system's sound, and you want to believe that your money spent buying (how many?) GSICs was money well-spent - after all, who likes believing he's wasted his money?

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.

You've invested considerable time and money on this project, and not a small amount of prestige, and have received a fair amount of invective and ridicule for your troubles. You could make it all worthwhile by subjecting your hypothesis to a serious test. If I understand what you did correctly, you treated (or had your wife treat) one GSIC for your recent test, a test in which, as, IXP pointed out, you had a 75% chance of success anyway, whether the thing worked or not. That is hardly a rigorous test.

I personally know that the GSIC alters the performance of compact discs.

How do you know that? Have you really subjected your GSIC to the kind of rigorous testing that many of us who have no more affiliation with the JREF than you have recommended?

There's a sig line that Huntsman likes to use:

Science is the process of crash testing ideas; the scientist does not coddle an idea, or design tests to make it work. The scientist rams the idea into a brick wall head-on at 60mph, and knowledge is gained by examining the pieces. If the theory is solid, the pieces are from the wall.

I'm a programmer by trade (I'm a "systems analyst" when I'm trying to impress the ignoranti), and I have a similar attitude when I'm writing code. When you start writing a program, you're just trying to make it work. But there reaches a point where, yes, you've finally made it work, and comes time for the serious testing. That's when I tell my boss, "I'm not trying to make it work any more. I'm trying to make it fail."

When I can't make my program fail any more, then it's ready for SAT - Systems Acceptibility Testing. That's when other people try to make it fail. And only when they can't make it fail is it ready to go into production.

Can you honestly say your test rammed your hypothesis into a brick wall head-on at 60 mph?

Can you honestly say you've tried to make the GSIC fail?

 

[Bronze Dog]

*bows in respect to BPSCG's post.*

 

[TjW]

I'll ask the question I've asked three times before:

Wellfed, what listening experience(s) would it take for you to say to yourself, "Well, I sure thought I heard a difference, but I guess I was wrong".

Maybe I'm on ignore. But I thought I asked politely.

 

[Moose]

BPSCG, very very well said.

 

[Wellfed]

Mr. Anda... you are mistaken in all regards.

1) The GSIC cannot alter the performance of CD's.

2) JREF has not lied to you or deceived you. Obstinancy is, of course, a subjective opinion and is dependent upon one's perspective.

3) If you truly believe the GSIC altered the CD's, then you are deluding yourself.

1) I can and it does.

2) Yes they have lied and deceived, not only me, but the participants at this site as well.

3) No I am not.

I say this to JREF; Bulls****t! Just do it.

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

 

[Wellfed]

*bows in respect to BPSCG's post.*

I have the utmost respect for BPSCG and his posting as well. No, I haven't tested the GSIC as hard as BPSCG suggests. 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. I stepped up and applied for this challenge with the courage of my convictions, and lo and behold, what did I find, Bulls****t.

I say this to JREF once again; Bulls****t! Just do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

I have had to edit several of your posts to remove the profanity you have used that is not allowed as per your Membership Agreement. Further breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Wellfed]

I'll ask the question I've asked three times before:

Wellfed, what listening experience(s) would it take for you to say to yourself, "Well, I sure thought I heard a difference, but I guess I was wrong".

Maybe I'm on ignore. But I thought I asked politely.

Nobody is on ignore at this point. If I no longer heard the effect I would tell you. I think I did answer your question once. FWIW, I don't recall anything from your pen that wasn't polite.

Public Service Announcement:

My time is severely limited this week. I will still respond to inquiries, but it won't be as quickly as I normally do. This pertains to this week only. I don't want anybody to get the wrong idea if I haven't responded promptly enough for their tastes.

 

[Wellfed]

BPSCG, very very well said.

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

 

[prewitt81]

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

To quote the GSIC Literature
Instructions: Remove the orange Intelligent Chip from its clear plastic protective case and place it on top of the CD/DVD/SACD player directly above the transport section, silver label facing up. Next, insert the disc to be upgraded in the player and push "Play" and allow the disc to play for 2 seconds. The Chip can also be placed on top of the player while the disc is playing with similar results.

(emphasis mine)

Mr. Anda, here is a simple test you can perform. I'm not claiming this to be a test worthy of the $1,000,000 prize, but one you could use to completely assure yourself that the effect you notice is real and not imagined. If the effect is produceable by placing the chip on a CD that is already playing, then why not try the following:

1) Take several CDs of your choice that you know have not been treated.

2) Blindfold yourself, turn away from your sound system, cover your face with a pillow -- something to keep you from seeing your system.

3) Instruct your wife, friend, child, whoever is helping you, at some point in the playing of the CD (chosen completely at random) to place the chip on the player to perform the "upgrade."

4) When the chip is placed on the equipment, have your helper start a stop watch. As soon as you notice a difference in the music, you will notify your helper who will record the time elapsed between "treatment" and your identification.

5) Post times on the forum, identifying "false starts" as such (saying "you've treated it just now" before the chip is applied).

I'm just typing as I think of this so if this is completely dumb I apologize. But if this sounds good, take the time and do it, Mr. Anda. Get someone who you know will not fudge results in your favor to protect your feelings or something like that, and try it. To be honest - and I hope I'm proven wrong - I'm not holding my breath that you'll try this, but if you do, the results should be interesting for all.

 

[jmercer]

1) I can and it does.

2) Yes they have lied and deceived, not only me, but the participants at this site as well.

3) No I am not.

I say this to JREF; Bullsh****]t! Just do it.

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

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for breach of Rule 8.

 

[Gr8wight]

Re: trolling? (on 'ignore')

From Gr8wight:
Actually, Webfusion, Wellfed put you on ignore after e-mailing me and asking, "what do you make of webfusion."

I replied, "In my opinion, webfusion is a troll."

and in his PM to me Gr8wight also said, "You, sir, are a jerk"

Yes I did. And immediately afterwards, you went back and edited the post I was referring to, so my comment had a positive effect.