Dear friends in the skeptic community
Presenting the “intelligent chipâ€, James Randi, asked: “Just how abysmally stupid can audio crazies get?†One of them responded – a blind test was about to be agreed to, but the whole discussions led to a “fiascoâ€.
Now that all this raving seems to be diminished, let me please share with you some of my thoughts, concerning, not only this device, but the whole attitude of JREF and your community, towards audio tweaks – expecting from you, only to forgive my very poor English, as it is not my native language and I don’t use it frequently.
I am one of those “audio lunatics, nuts and crazies†that Mr. Randi derides – I have already successfully used two “intelligent chipsâ€, but also, even more radical devices, like the ones that Peter and May Belt feature, receiving such alike comments by JREF.
It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million. I am sure also, that “Golden Sound†is not still ready to support me financially for the task, let alone that I will have to pass even harder tests in the American embassy in order to get a visa!
So – let me address to you, to talk you about…
THE CULT OF THE BLIND TEST
Every cult shares a portion of truth, and the most successful ones are those with the biggest portions. And friends, without underestimating the value of the ABX test, I am about to renounce it as the one and sublime way to verify the claims of an audio contriver.
1) First of all, I’d like to ask: What is the main purpose of a blind test? To investigate a “paranormal†phenomenon, test the “pseudo-scientific explanations†of the inventor of a device, or test the ability of the listener? If Wellfed, or me - Trainman - could pass the JREF examination, what would we prove? Would we prove that GSIC really enhances the audio quality of a compact disc, or that we have “paranormal†abilities? And why couldn’t someone claim, that nothing of the sort is proven, “but the protocol was just not framed properly?â€
The best answer that one could give would be that I proved my ability to earn 1 million dollars. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
2) The second question I like to add is why Mr Randi’s, Kramer’s and Hans’s sceptic nature does not bother to test the abilities of the music reviewers and commentators. Let me be, a bit more specific:
I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. The one is a recording of the third part of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata†with the legendary Ignaz Friedman on the piano, recorded on September 1926. The other recording is the same piece, from the same pianist, recorded two years later – at 1928 - same pianist, same piece, same frenzy performance, with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.
Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?
If you could really succeed in this task, would that be a “paranormal†phenomenon or not Mr Kramer? And could then the various “mediumsâ€, “psychics†and the rest, rejoice that the sceptics are beaten at last?
Now: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. Some of them could even tell you and compare by thought only, the difference between Rubinstein’s and Horowitz’s Chopin, the differences in the performances of the same artist during the years, the various product values and qualities of the recordings. For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.
These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.
I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?
Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends? Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?
3) Let’s return to the blind test again. As I said before, you cannot underestimate its value when you are a researcher, a scientist in the field of psychoacoustics and even more, if you happen to be a magician, a person qualified to deceive the sight of the audience in a show. Things cannot be so positive though, in the world of audio – at least since we recognize some difference, between the terms of “sound†and “musicâ€.
Let me give you some examples:
Every expert will tell you that the hearing ability of the human being starts to decrease after the 18th year. Very few people human ears have the ability to discern sounds close to 20 kHz after their adolescence. Most of us adults, hear up to 16000-17000 Hz.
How come then, the whole planet to trust an aged violinist to fulfil their needs of musical pleasure? Why not to prefer a young and cheerful artist that would have his listening abilities intact? Is it because the audience is not able to hear the difference too? And what about the makers of the instruments? When did Guarnieri or Sax produce their best instruments – at their teens, or fifties?
Most of us, audiophiles, when younger, were pretty satisfied when listening to our music through cheap stereo junk walkmans, like our younger brothers and sons that listen now through their ipods and mp3s. Would you claim that they know better, and their 50$ machines sound better than the serious high fidelity stuff of their fathers? What is for sure though, is that they are happier than us!...
When I see published ABX tests such like the ones (www.pcavtech.com) that Mr Randi praised in one of his commentaries, I aim to find data that is usually missing or is difficult to describe: Age, experience in listening, familiarity with the hi-fi system and the recordings, interest in the music playing.
And last – are you, sceptics, sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way?
TOWARDS MY OWN “PROTOCOLâ€
What is the biggest enemy of the double blind experiment? The sales of the products, of course!
You can easily say that a person is somehow deceived, but you have to answer, how could be a more massive sample of satisfied customers deceived, and believe that their 16$ or 200 pounds “swindlesâ€, improve the sound of their cd’s (or the perception of it). The usual answer of yours is that these people are temporally or constantly in a state of self illusion, or that they are ready to believe everything they are told to.
Well, I cannot argue that there is always such a category – “a sucker is born every minute†etc. In reality though, things are more complicated.
- There are those who believe everything and are ready to pay (how many of them you’ve really met?)
- There are the converts – those that did not believe but “saw the light†- myself included.
- There are the ones that just do not care.
- There are the ones that did not believe, agreed that the “tweaks†work, but didn’t care afterwards – didn’t care to explain the phenomenon (some of my fellow-students for instance).
- There are people that admit before listening, “not able to judge†but “if you say so, I believe you, because you are experienced and you know betterâ€.
- There are people that listen hard, but they cannot discern any difference.
- There are people that they feel very comfortable to refuse the possibility of sound altering, since James Randi has done it first and nobody challenged him through accepting to participate to a double blind test.
- There are those that refuse to accept the eventuality of the extreme “tweakingâ€, since the principle that lies beyond it is unscientific.
- There are the ones that believe that the whole thing is “********â€.
There will always be people that are extremely satisfied listening music through a cheap Chinese portable and the ones that would not rest even with the most expensive frontline system. There will always be the audio-ignorant and the audio-neurotic. Which kind of listener should I choose to demonstrate the efficiency of a product?
For me, a blind test was not needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music. I have studied music from my early childhood and, although I didn’t become a performer, I grew up to be a dedicated listener. Was I born a person ready to be deceived by swindlers at my forties, that the cd’s perform better under their shadow cases? Well – who knows?
I didn’t manage to come to the States for the million that could save my life (and help me buy many more lp’s and cd’s and a much better system for sure) but I managed to create an imaginary “protocol†just for you!
I choose someone among you, which have the same love of music and can appreciate mine. A person that has at least experienced in the past, the feeling of longing to find a record that is not available at his local shop, or even in his country – that has gathered with difficulty money and has waited patiently for months for a record to come from abroad.
If possible, I would choose for start a person that appreciates classical music and can discern a good pianist from a mediocre one. I would then invite him in my little salon for a cup of tea or coffee.
I wouldn’t choose a good recording, as Golden Sound and Machina Dynamica suggest for the experiment. I would choose an old one, one of those ADD’s, maybe one of those ageing recordings that border on paranormal – for what but “paranormal†is for a music lover, to be able to listen to the gramophone recordings of the old Masters!
It is with these recordings of the early 20’s and 30’s that the audio engineers struggle. They have to battle against millions of clicks and pops and crackles, they have to manage the lack of bass, the lack of air, they got to balance the opposites - they have to restore a wreck from the bottom of the sea.
I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?â€
It is for sure an unorthodox approach and a weird protocol without any prize. But you are always welcome.
Trainman
Presenting the “intelligent chipâ€, James Randi, asked: “Just how abysmally stupid can audio crazies get?†One of them responded – a blind test was about to be agreed to, but the whole discussions led to a “fiascoâ€.
Now that all this raving seems to be diminished, let me please share with you some of my thoughts, concerning, not only this device, but the whole attitude of JREF and your community, towards audio tweaks – expecting from you, only to forgive my very poor English, as it is not my native language and I don’t use it frequently.
I am one of those “audio lunatics, nuts and crazies†that Mr. Randi derides – I have already successfully used two “intelligent chipsâ€, but also, even more radical devices, like the ones that Peter and May Belt feature, receiving such alike comments by JREF.
It would be fun to candidate for your million bucks but it seems almost impossible: You see, it happens to live in the other hemisphere of the planet – in Greece – and travelling to USA, staying, preparing and passing the whole tests is a tough plan, even in the quest of a million. I am sure also, that “Golden Sound†is not still ready to support me financially for the task, let alone that I will have to pass even harder tests in the American embassy in order to get a visa!
So – let me address to you, to talk you about…
THE CULT OF THE BLIND TEST
Every cult shares a portion of truth, and the most successful ones are those with the biggest portions. And friends, without underestimating the value of the ABX test, I am about to renounce it as the one and sublime way to verify the claims of an audio contriver.
1) First of all, I’d like to ask: What is the main purpose of a blind test? To investigate a “paranormal†phenomenon, test the “pseudo-scientific explanations†of the inventor of a device, or test the ability of the listener? If Wellfed, or me - Trainman - could pass the JREF examination, what would we prove? Would we prove that GSIC really enhances the audio quality of a compact disc, or that we have “paranormal†abilities? And why couldn’t someone claim, that nothing of the sort is proven, “but the protocol was just not framed properly?â€
The best answer that one could give would be that I proved my ability to earn 1 million dollars. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
2) The second question I like to add is why Mr Randi’s, Kramer’s and Hans’s sceptic nature does not bother to test the abilities of the music reviewers and commentators. Let me be, a bit more specific:
I have in front of me, two cd’s from the Naxos label, two historical recordings. The one is a recording of the third part of Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata†with the legendary Ignaz Friedman on the piano, recorded on September 1926. The other recording is the same piece, from the same pianist, recorded two years later – at 1928 - same pianist, same piece, same frenzy performance, with just a very few seconds difference in the total time of the two recordings.
Does anyone of you claim that a pianist can play twice the same piece, in absolutely the same way? I suppose not. Does anyone of you, believe that you could identify the two recordings under a blind test, even if you were offered one million dollars for a prize?
If you could really succeed in this task, would that be a “paranormal†phenomenon or not Mr Kramer? And could then the various “mediumsâ€, “psychics†and the rest, rejoice that the sceptics are beaten at last?
Now: Every respectable newspaper and magazine has its own music and arts section. From the New York Times to the Gramophone, there are very respectable people that comment on music performances, and disc productions. Some of them could even tell you and compare by thought only, the difference between Rubinstein’s and Horowitz’s Chopin, the differences in the performances of the same artist during the years, the various product values and qualities of the recordings. For sure, they could be very quick to tell you which reading of Beethoven’s sonatas they prefer.
These people do not sell cheap tweaks and chips to a handful of nuts like me. They write at the most respectable publications. They can destroy a career of an artist and make one of another. These people have power in their hands.
I can imagine many of them, along with some hundreds of piano teachers, to claim that they are able to discriminate the various recordings and tell you that Ignaz Friedman in the second recording blurs that phrase or the other. Would you ever ask them to repeat their judgment under a blind test?
Why haven’t you challenged the music reviewers, dear friends? Is it only because their ability to listen through a recording or a concert is theoretically and scientifically possible (in contrary with the absurd claims of Peter Belt or Machina Dynamica), or you are afraid to do so?
3) Let’s return to the blind test again. As I said before, you cannot underestimate its value when you are a researcher, a scientist in the field of psychoacoustics and even more, if you happen to be a magician, a person qualified to deceive the sight of the audience in a show. Things cannot be so positive though, in the world of audio – at least since we recognize some difference, between the terms of “sound†and “musicâ€.
Let me give you some examples:
Every expert will tell you that the hearing ability of the human being starts to decrease after the 18th year. Very few people human ears have the ability to discern sounds close to 20 kHz after their adolescence. Most of us adults, hear up to 16000-17000 Hz.
How come then, the whole planet to trust an aged violinist to fulfil their needs of musical pleasure? Why not to prefer a young and cheerful artist that would have his listening abilities intact? Is it because the audience is not able to hear the difference too? And what about the makers of the instruments? When did Guarnieri or Sax produce their best instruments – at their teens, or fifties?
Most of us, audiophiles, when younger, were pretty satisfied when listening to our music through cheap stereo junk walkmans, like our younger brothers and sons that listen now through their ipods and mp3s. Would you claim that they know better, and their 50$ machines sound better than the serious high fidelity stuff of their fathers? What is for sure though, is that they are happier than us!...
When I see published ABX tests such like the ones (www.pcavtech.com) that Mr Randi praised in one of his commentaries, I aim to find data that is usually missing or is difficult to describe: Age, experience in listening, familiarity with the hi-fi system and the recordings, interest in the music playing.
And last – are you, sceptics, sure, that five different people listening to a music reproducing system in blind always apprehend its sound in the same way?
TOWARDS MY OWN “PROTOCOLâ€
What is the biggest enemy of the double blind experiment? The sales of the products, of course!
You can easily say that a person is somehow deceived, but you have to answer, how could be a more massive sample of satisfied customers deceived, and believe that their 16$ or 200 pounds “swindlesâ€, improve the sound of their cd’s (or the perception of it). The usual answer of yours is that these people are temporally or constantly in a state of self illusion, or that they are ready to believe everything they are told to.
Well, I cannot argue that there is always such a category – “a sucker is born every minute†etc. In reality though, things are more complicated.
- There are those who believe everything and are ready to pay (how many of them you’ve really met?)
- There are the converts – those that did not believe but “saw the light†- myself included.
- There are the ones that just do not care.
- There are the ones that did not believe, agreed that the “tweaks†work, but didn’t care afterwards – didn’t care to explain the phenomenon (some of my fellow-students for instance).
- There are people that admit before listening, “not able to judge†but “if you say so, I believe you, because you are experienced and you know betterâ€.
- There are people that listen hard, but they cannot discern any difference.
- There are people that they feel very comfortable to refuse the possibility of sound altering, since James Randi has done it first and nobody challenged him through accepting to participate to a double blind test.
- There are those that refuse to accept the eventuality of the extreme “tweakingâ€, since the principle that lies beyond it is unscientific.
- There are the ones that believe that the whole thing is “********â€.
There will always be people that are extremely satisfied listening music through a cheap Chinese portable and the ones that would not rest even with the most expensive frontline system. There will always be the audio-ignorant and the audio-neurotic. Which kind of listener should I choose to demonstrate the efficiency of a product?
For me, a blind test was not needed to acknowledge the impact of some devices unto my perception of music. I have studied music from my early childhood and, although I didn’t become a performer, I grew up to be a dedicated listener. Was I born a person ready to be deceived by swindlers at my forties, that the cd’s perform better under their shadow cases? Well – who knows?
I didn’t manage to come to the States for the million that could save my life (and help me buy many more lp’s and cd’s and a much better system for sure) but I managed to create an imaginary “protocol†just for you!
I choose someone among you, which have the same love of music and can appreciate mine. A person that has at least experienced in the past, the feeling of longing to find a record that is not available at his local shop, or even in his country – that has gathered with difficulty money and has waited patiently for months for a record to come from abroad.
If possible, I would choose for start a person that appreciates classical music and can discern a good pianist from a mediocre one. I would then invite him in my little salon for a cup of tea or coffee.
I wouldn’t choose a good recording, as Golden Sound and Machina Dynamica suggest for the experiment. I would choose an old one, one of those ADD’s, maybe one of those ageing recordings that border on paranormal – for what but “paranormal†is for a music lover, to be able to listen to the gramophone recordings of the old Masters!
It is with these recordings of the early 20’s and 30’s that the audio engineers struggle. They have to battle against millions of clicks and pops and crackles, they have to manage the lack of bass, the lack of air, they got to balance the opposites - they have to restore a wreck from the bottom of the sea.
I would choose Naxos’s transfers of the ageing records of Ignaz Friedman, or the legendary Arthur Schnabel’s Beethoven Sonata Society Recordings, transferred for cd from Pearl. I would let the friend to listen with me those recordings, marginally listenable through my old and bright Pioneer-Mission system. Then, I would place the Intelligent Chip over the platter. And when the white noise would rise minatory from the background, when the harmonics of the higher octaves would be more insistent without being balanced from the already missing bass, when the piercing of the needle of the gramophone to the record would be more apparent, then I would ask my visitor: “Would you still wish to continue?â€
It is for sure an unorthodox approach and a weird protocol without any prize. But you are always welcome.
Trainman
In fact, have a read of some of the claims that were put to the test, where they even made several bookings and tried to accomodate the applicants as best as they could, even at one point booking a hall, I believe and changing the date to best suit the applicant. 
