GSIC AUDIO

[LostAngeles]

For that matter, how do we know that the specific chip being tested wasn't defective? Or the CDs? Or the CD player? Or that LA's life wasn't threatened to force her to lie and claim that she didn't hear a difference? Or that aliens didn't somehow interfere?

A true scientific test would require sorting out a few of the above issues, and a hearing test would certainly be in order.

In short, all scientific proofs are provisional. Lacking a hearing test, and using only 1 chip, means this test is more provisional than most. But, given the (self) report of passing hearing tests, and no one mentioning having trouble communicating with LA during the test because she kept mishearing what was being said, we can certainly conclude that we have strong, though not overwhelming evidence, that the chip is useless.

Yes! We have our first excuse for the test failing!

The life of me, my love, and my sweet little kitties were being threatend by aliens from Zugma Eta Alpha V to say that there was no difference because the GSIC would prove their existence!

 

[SezMe]

I just want to know one thing about the test. Did she get past the non-blind baseline first test? And if so, did she honestly hear (or believe she heard) a difference?

That could tell us a lot about why this thing doesn't just go away in the face of common sense.

Hitch, I guess we didn't make it clear that the test that was conducted WAS the baseline test. That is, LA knew which disc had been treated and yet was not able to honestly hear the difference between the treated and untreated discs.

Of course, by the protocol agreed upon, this formally ended the challenge.

 

[Hitch]

Hitch, I guess we didn't make it clear that the test that was conducted WAS the baseline test. That is, LA knew which disc had been treated and yet was not able to honestly hear the difference between the treated and untreated discs.

Of course, by the protocol agreed upon, this formally ended the challenge.

Thank you. It may have been a fault in my reading. I thought maybe if she'd convinced herself that she could hear the effect in the baseline test, we would have some confirmation of a placebo effect when you know the chip is being used.

I'm sure the audiophiles will insist that their refined listening tastes are more adept at perceiving the improvement of sound quality than LA. Which reminds me of the title of that Penn & Teller show.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm sure the audiophiles will insist that their refined listening tastes are more adept at perceiving the improvement of sound quality than LA. Which reminds me of the title of that Penn & Teller show.

P&T's final episode this season dealt with exactly that phenomenon. They had a bunch of people with supposedly refined tastes in food (the marks) brought to a fancy restaurant by a friend (P&T shill), where they were waited on by a waiter (another P&T shill) who described what they were being served in the most flowery, elegant gustatory terms.

Problem is, the meal being prepared was all being done in a microwave or a cooktop. For example, the potatoes were instant mashed potateos, ladled into an empty tuna can for shape, plopped out onto the plate, then hit with a blowtorch for a few seconds. The wine that allegedly had "a spectacular 65-second finish" (actual description of an actual $1000 bottle) was a bottle of $1.98 rotgut. The dessert was allegedly a white-chocolate mousse, served in martini glasses. One of the marks, on tasting the dessert, commented, "This sure isn't your everyday Kool-Whip," to which Penn brayed, "He's right; it's a cheap imitation Kool-Whip!!!"*

All the marks, with one exception, raved about the food and wine. When the truth was revealed to them, they all looked a bit chagrined, except for the one who hadn't thought much of the food; he commented, "That explains a lot..."

Yes, your perceptions can be colored by your expectations. Even when you have golden taste buds.

And even, I dare say, when you have "golden ears."

* Am I the only one who can only characterize Penn's speech as "braying"?

 

[Metullus]

So how about a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the GSIC for LA's loss of the $1M - which should have been a shoo-in if the device worked as advertised? Could force the GSIC folks to prove thier device works...

 

[BPSCG]

So how about a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the GSIC for LA's loss of the $1M - which should have been a shoo-in if the device worked as advertised? Could force the GSIC folks to prove thier device works...

I'm no lawyer, but I don't think LA would be able to collect more than the ten bucks she actually lost. Anything above that would be punitive damages.

 

[Metullus]

Neither am I a lawyer, but, it seems to me that there would be some value in claiming lost opportunity damages and punitive damages.

But for the failure of the GSIC to perform as represented by the manufacturer LA would have received $1M.

Proving lost opportunity and calculating damages would not be a problem; I'm sure Randi would happily testify that she would have been entitled to the $1M if the device had performed. Furthermore, Randi could well testify that she could reapply and win the $1M. So, if the device worked there is no doubt that LA would be (or will be next year) $1M richer.

Finally, LA purchased the GSIC for the sole purpose of winning the money.

Probably no real case, but I’ve seen flimsier pretexts for litigation.

A guy can dream, can’t he?

ETD stoopid mistakes.

 

[Gr8wight]

I strongly disagree...but maybe not for the reason you think it is a failure.

We now have a simple, well-defined example of a claim being made, a protocol negotiated (with some attendant pain) and finally agreed upon, the baseline test conducted in accordance with the agreed upon protocol, and the results signed off by the claimant and the tester. All of the testing was video-taped from start to finish with additional stills taken throughout. When I have all of the supporting materials together, I will send them to Kramer.

Now Kramer has a very useful tool. When someone complains about how testing, protocols, etc. he can point to this well conducted case and say, "Here, if you can design, conduct and document your claim as well as this one, we have some reason to proceed."

And Angela Patel and Achau Nguyen don't do that for us?

 

[SezMe]

And Angela Patel and Achau Nguyen don't do that for us?

I think the GSIC documentation (paperwork, video, photos) will be more complete when all put together. No, it is not revolutionarily better, but evolutionarily so. (Maybe those all aren't words. )