DEJA GATEWARD & THE GSIC fiasco

[KRAMER]

This claim came in a week ago but I've only just now had the time to transcribe it.

=============================================

I, Deja Gatewood, propose to test the claim that the GSIC (Golden Intelligent Sound Chip) will improve the audio quality of cd's, such that an average listener will be able to notice. This test will be performed should the other applicant, Mr. Anda, decline to be tested or delays the testing for more than a reasonable amount of time. The protocol to be used will be the so-called "Steven Howard Protocol", as developed in the JREF forums, with specification on the materials to be used.

Sincerely, Deja Gatewood

=============================================

What distinguishes this claim from all others is that it was submitted by an individual who does not believe that the device works, but with a million dollars at stake, is willing to try her very best to prove that it does.

It was submitted as a response to the tomfoolery surrounding the protracted protocol negotiations of another applicant, Mr. Michael Anda, whose application (based upon what we can surmise from his claim letter) was submitted out of anger against Randi for some disaparaging remarks he made about reviews for the GSIC which were written by Anda.

The protocol negotiations were quickly bogged down by a series of inanities well documented in the MICHAEL ANDA application thread, and in the JREF forum Challenge threads entitled, "GSIC", "AUDIO CRITIC", and most curiously (following the eventual rejection of his application), another entitled "MY STRUGGLE". See those threads for the full story.

Mr. Anda (who is at this time enjoying a suspension from the JREF forums for repeatedly using profanity despite several Cease & Desists from the forum moderator) had his file closed after weeks of protocol negotiations, once it had become more than apparent that his goal was not to be tested, but rather to call into question JREF's credibility (just as Randi had questioned the credibility of the GSIC) in a campaign of stupidity that turned the attention away from his claim, and toward himself and his struggle.

In an attempt to decipher what is true regarding the GSIC, this new application was submitted. The goal is, in my opinion, a worthy one, despite the attention I am sure it will bring from the woo-woo community, who will surely insist that the test is rigged.
So be it. The truth is more important than anything anyone might say about the JREF.

 

[KRAMER]

The Steven Howard Protocol

Many forum members insist that this protocol is not as tight as it can be, and the debate continues, as it should.

CFI-West has been contacted, and we have every confidence that a proper test of the GSIC is forthcoming. The applicant's willingness to suspend her own privacy and see herself held up to public ridicule as a JREF stooge is to be commended, in my opinion.

It seems pointless to post the Steven Howard Protocol as it seems quite certain that some changes will be made. Once the mutually agreed upon protocol has been determined, I will post it here.

 

[KRAMER]

To Jim Underdown at CFI-West

Hello Jim,

We have an usual situation here.

A "gentleman" named Michael Anda submitted an application in which he says he will prove that the GSIC (Golden Sound Intelligent Chip) is not a hoax, but a device that actually works. Google GSIC and you'll see what we're talking about here.

After weeks of waffling and accusing the JREF of duplicity and much worse, we reluctantly rejected his claim.

A JREF forum member, looking to help us to test the device and decipher fact from fiction, has since submitted an application involving the GSIC, nearly identical to the original by Mr. Anda.

She does NOT believe that the device works, but is willing to give it a shot, the million bucks being the carrot on a stick here. She does NOT wish to fail. The JREF forum threads detail much of what led to this, if you wish to peruse it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53829

Beware, though. It is the longest thread in JREF forum history, and it is only a few weeks old. Few issues have been more hotly debated.

The applicant is in your area and may have already contacted you. This email is to advise you of the acceptance of her claim, and to ask if you can once again offer your expertise in helping us to test this device. Other forum members in your area are already hard at work on several issues pertaining to the actual test (including location, etc), and a bit more refining needs to be done on the protocol, but all in all, I think should be very easy for you to test.

What are your thoughts on this?

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

A Protocol

The applicant sent the following protocol to us and to Jim Underdown at CFI-West:

==========================================

Hello,

As you may be aware, I am the current JREF applicant for testing the GSIC. I know that Kramer and Roger Schlueter have both contacted you on this matter. I thought it best not to bother you until we had a protocol settled on.

It seems that we're going to go with a version of the ABX method. The ABX has the advantage of being widely accepted as the way to do audio double-blind testing in the audiophile community. We're going to get accusations no matter what the results, so we should probably remove the chance to accuse us of using "the wrong" method.

It goes like this:

# Mark the disks sequentially, one through (36-48).

# GSIC-treat discs randomly, as determined by a coin toss.

# Seal a written record of which numbered discs have been treated ("1- treated, 2 - treated, 3 - untreated... X - untreated").

# Load the numbered disks into the numbered slots in the jukebox all at once, in accordance with their sequence number (disc one - slot one, disc 2 - slot 2, etc.).

# Shut the jukebox access door and duct-tape it shut to prevent tampering.

# Cover the rest of the front of the machine with duct tape except for the display that shows which numbered slot is currently being played, as well as the playback controls.

# I could then go back and forth between CD's as much as she wants without annoying anyone, and write down my guesses ("1 - untreated, 2- untreated, 3 - treated... 1X - treated"). You'd need no more than one observer, to confirm that I didn't tamper with the machine; of course, a video would supplement that observer. Alternatively, I could be required to use the jukebox's remote, to prevent me from actually touching the machine.

# When I'm done, open the machine, and confirm that the discs'
locations were not tampered with (i.e., disc 1 is still in slot 1,
etc.).

# Compare my written responses with the previously sealed actual record of which discs were treated.

A full match on all answers is a passing score. We (the thread
participants) have decided to go with "Peter and the Wolf" for the CD, since it has individual acoustic instruments.

As for the "when," I tend to be fully available on Sundays. If that
doesn't work for you, I could be available in the evenings, with the exception of Mondays and Wednesdays until June 7th. I do have jury duty the following week, but my schedule becomes slightly more open after that.

Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon,

Deja Gateward

 

[KRAMER]

A Base Line Test is Required

Dear Deja,

Randi approves the test protocol, but insists on one addition to the procedure which we shall refer to as the BASE LINE TEST. Sorry for the surprise, Deja, but I've only just been made aware of this neccesity.

Randi always begins dowsing tests (for example) with a simple test in which NO BLINDS are enforced and the item being searched for is not hidden. In other words, prior to the actual test, if for example an applicant is looking for water in covered buckets, a Base Line test is conducted WITHOUT covers on the buckets, to show that the applicant is confident that their dowsing tools work.

When such Base Line tests are conducted, lo' and behold, the dowser is ALWAYS 100% successful in seeing the dowsing tools operating correctly. How surprising. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

This procedure insures that the applicant has no OUT following failure of the actual preliminary test, and also insures that he/she cannot reasonably state that the unsuccessful demonstration was the result of faulty or malfunctioning dowsing gear, or that the test location contained corrupting influences. Get it?

Then, we remove the applicant from the test area, and set up the actual test. The applicant is then brought back into the test area and the test may begin.

Suffice to say that if the applicant fails the Base Line test, it's all
over. No official JREF test is conducted if the applicant fails the Base Line Test, as this pre-test demonstrates that the applicant cannot do what has been claimed.

Randi strongly feels that such a Base Line Test is a requirement in the forthcoming GSIC test, and he suggests the following protocol to be followed in clear view of yourself and all participants and observers:

Take two discs: use a sharpie to write the letter A on one disc, and then TREAT it with the GSIC device. Write the letter B on the second disc, and leave it untreated.

Then listen to the A disc, followed by the B disc, and state whether or not you can tell the difference. If you honestly cannot decipher a difference between the two, the matter is concluded and no official JREF test shall take place.

You may at that time feel free to conduct the test with CFI-West regardless of this fact, of course, but the JREF's involvement will have been concluded, along with your chance to win the Million bucks.

So, if you can't tell the difference between the treated and un-treated discs when you KNOW which one has been treated, it's obvious that the results of any Blinded test will be based solely upon CHANCE.

OK?

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

 

[KRAMER]

Kramer,

I'm perfectly ok with that. We'll discuss timing with Jim Underdown in another e-mail then. Not that we'd be doing it in the next few weeks anyway, but I do have finals approaching.

Thanks,

Deja

=============================================

OK, Deja. Good luck with the finals.

 

[KRAMER]

A forthcoming Base-Line Test, and maybe more...

Hello all,

Finals are finished so my schedule has opened up. I'm good for a preliminary test on a weekend sometime around mid to late July. If I put in the orders in the next couple of weeks or so we should certainly have the GSIC by then.

Randi's suggested protocol for the preliminary (base-line, which is perfectly ok by me) is as such:

Take two discs: use a sharpie to write the letter A on one disc, and then TREAT it with the GSIC device. Write the letter B on the second disc, and leave it untreated.

Then listen to the A disc, followed by the B disc, and state whether or not I can tell the difference. If I honestly cannot decipher a difference between the two, the matter is concluded and no official JREF test shall take place.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter and I hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks, Deja Gateward

=========================================

From CFI-West investigator Roger Schlueter...

I propose July 17th at 2 pm.

-Roger

 

[KRAMER]

The GSIC Test on July 17th, 2005

July 17th looks good for me also. - Deja Gateward

 

[KRAMER]

A Simple Plan

The CFI-West investigator in charge of the GSIC test has an excellent idea, in my humble opinion.

==========================================

Here is why I suggested that we try to coordinate this test with an IIG meeting.

Imagine we perform the Base Line test and Deja cannot differentiate between the two CDs. End of the JREF test, right? Fair enough, but imagine the chatter on the audio-nutter sites. LostAngeles will become "LostHearing" or "The Ear Wax Queen" or whatever. One sampling by one person and the test is canceled will be the source of derision on the audio woo-woo sites.

I want to find a way to fight back from this reaction.

If we have 20-30+ people in attendance we could continue with NON-FORMAL testing to generate additional data. Again, this would NOT be part of the formal JREF protocol, but would provide additional evidence.

Here is how we could proceed. One-by-one, people could be the subject. This assumes that ear phones are used so that only the one subject can hear the test. Disk A or B could be selected at random and put in the player.

Then the listener (who would be blinded to the selection) could choose between, A, B, or "Same". The statistics of the results could be compared with statisitcal expectations and conclusions drawn. Again, these conclusions would NOT be part of the formal test but would undeniably provide statistically valid information.

Your thoughts?

Roger

 

[KRAMER]

Randi agrees...

Yes, I agree.

Only caveat: we’d need affidavits from those who try the test, saying that they believe they could tell the difference if it’s there. And, issue a notice to all the “experts” to participate. Report afterward how many declined.

-James Randi

 

[KRAMER]

The GSIC Test Failure

On Saturday August 20, at CFI-West in LA and with one million dollars at stake, Deja Gateward tried her best to discern between
a GSIC-treated cd and a non-treated cd. She could not succeed in doing so.

Following the test she sent me the following email:

Hello Kramer,

If you haven't yet heard from Jim or Roger, the GSIC failed to make any difference in the sound for myself or any of the observers this afternoon. I'm disappointed, but honestly, not all that surprised.

We first listend to the CDs before treatment to determine that they were, in fact, identical. This done, a coin was flipped, and I witnessed a disk get treated with the chip. We then listend to the same portions of the CDs. I had thought that there was a slight difference with the treated one, but when we got to the drums and then the strings, it was fairly clear to me there was no real discernable difference. I asked them to return to the untreated CD briefly for confirmation and receieved it.

I'm sorry to say that Randi's not giving me the million anytime soon. If you're ever in the need to test a product again and need a claimant, I'd be happy to be at your services again.

Just get me one that works.

-Deja Gateward

==============================================

Hello Ms. Gateward,

I'm SHOCKED, I tell you. SHOCKED!!!

Thanks for giving it a good try anyway. I wish the test could have proven conclusively that the GSIC doesn't work, but it seems obvious that NO TEST could prove that to those who believe in it.

And so it goes.

 

[KRAMER]

From Roger at CFI-West

Kramer, I just wanted to also follow-up as Deja did with what I will do to close out this case.

As you know, Deja was unable to differentiate the two CDs even knowing which had been treated. End of formal test. Sadly, we only had about 10 others who stayed around after the IIG meeting who participated in the "informal" test. As you might expect, none of them could differentiate between the CDs NOT knowing which had been treated.

I will provide you with the following materials to close out this challenge:

1. The original protocol testing sheet that Deja and I signed attesting to the result of the test.

2. A copy of the protocol introductory "notes" that I read from to begin the test.

3. Digital photos. I have not received these from Jim Underdown but I expect them via e-mail "soon".

4. A complete video of the test. The original tape (NOT in VHS format) will remain at CFI-West. A copy will be made in VHS format and sent to me.

When I have Items 1-4 all together, I will forward all of them to you for final archiving.

As I indicated in the GSIC forum thread, I think Deja is to be commended for her efforts. I hope that JREF can benefit from this example of good testing to assist you with future challenges.

Roger