• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

GSIC AUDIO

kk2796 said:
Ah, and you're really to the heart of it - I sheepishly confess that I'm a type A personality when it comes to this type of thing... I couldn't help but take up the challenge of trying to devise a test that would
1) address WF's objections (forcing him to probably come up with new, ever farther-fetched objections) and yet
2) still test and falsifiy his claims, should they indeed be false.

In short, and in honesty, I think there is very little chance of my test being accepted.

Again, I wasn't coming down on you and didn't mean it to sound as such. My comments about the tube and/or observers in the way of the camera was more of a joke than anything.

I just don't want you to waste time and thought on someone who has not even spent a fraction of that on him simply doing it himself.

He could, quite obviously, simply do a test himself. It would require an additional person about 5 minutes of time and any amount of his time as he wished to spend 5mintues to days.

He could even spend 5 minutes lying about this test (which makes me think he is secure in delusion, or has come to realize he may be deluded)

He has not done this.

Do not waste your thought, nor your time.

I do not condem your intentions. At all, Sir.


I would focus on LA, as I believe she will be tested.
 
I guess even the strictest of protocols won't be able to rule out the possibility of a sort of 'nocebo-like' effect. The listener disbelieving the effect (and rightly so) might render him/her less likely to notice a potential difference, even if he/she could have noticed it with an open mind. I don't know if such a bias would play a part in this experiment, but proponents of the GSIC device could at least use this as an argument to discredit quality of the test.
 
Mordak said:
I guess even the strictest of protocols won't be able to rule out the possibility of a sort of 'nocebo-like' effect. The listener disbelieving the effect (and rightly so) might render him/her less likely to notice a potential difference, even if he/she could have noticed it with an open mind. I don't know if such a bias would play a part in this experiment, but proponents of the GSIC device could at least use this as an argument to discredit quality of the test.

But then weigh it up the benefits for the person doing the test to hear a difference - there are 1,000,000 of them!

If LostAngeles can hear a difference (whatever that difference is) she will then be very close to walking away with $1,000,000.
 
I believe LA will need to do a control test by openly treating a disc and determining if she can tell the difference prior to beginning the blind portion of the test. If she is unable to hear a difference when she knows the treatment has been done, the remainder of the test is a waste of time.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSIC AUDIO

Vikram said:
It isn't entirely impossible that Mr. Anda will accept the bet, waffle massively on the terms, and then "table" all negotiations till October.

You need to have your perceptual vision checked.
 
So, if the GSIC is magic, then it probably also works as a pain reliever.

Of course, for it to work you'd have to sit on it.

Then it would be an anal-GSIC.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GSIC AUDIO

-42- said:

...

Don't even reply or look at my posts, you disgust me.

...

There is no profit in reading your poorly conceived trash, so I won't. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Mordak said:
I guess even the strictest of protocols won't be able to rule out the possibility of a sort of 'nocebo-like' effect. The listener disbelieving the effect (and rightly so) might render him/her less likely to notice a potential difference, even if he/she could have noticed it with an open mind. I don't know if such a bias would play a part in this experiment, but proponents of the GSIC device could at least use this as an argument to discredit quality of the test.
Welcome to the forum, Mordak!

You homed in on what I was trying to point out earlier.

Assuming LA has normal hearing, if she can determine which CDs are GSIC-treated, then presumably, anyone with normal hearing should be able to, and it should be a simple matter to show that being able to detect a GSIC-treated CD is not a paranormal ability. Though I bet the GSIC manufacturer would love to be able to advertise her success.

If LA can not determine which CDs are GSIC-treated, then it proves... what? Nothing more than the fact that LA can't tell the difference. It could be because the GSIC is a fraud, which most of us here are inclined to believe, or it could be because her hearing is somehow defective or the test was flawed, which I'm sure the GSIC manufacturer would claim.

Wellfed's paranormal claim was that he could hear the GSIC effect. Implicit in that claim was the assumption that the GSIC effect would be undetectable by people with normal hearing. If everyone could detect the difference, then the claim wouldn't be paranormal. If I claim I can see a traffic light from a hundred meters away, that's not a paranormal claim; if I claim I can also identify which direction a flea on that light is facing, that would be paranormal.

What is the paranormal claim here? LA isn't claiming she can detect the difference; she says she honestly doesn't know.

Is the paranormal claim that the GSIC actually works? If it does work, and if anyone with normal hearing can detect the difference, then LA's ability to detect it isn't paranormal.

What would be paranormal would be either:

1) LA detects a difference nobody else can detect, or;
2) The GSIC changes the sound from the CD so that everyone detects a difference, and there's no explanation based in logic or physics that can explain how.

I don't see anyone here making either claim. The only thing the protocol tests, as presented, is whether or not LA, and only LA, can detect a treated CD.
 
2) The GSIC changes the sound from the CD so that everyone detects a difference, and there's no explanation based in logic or physics that can explain how.

I thought that's exactly what the LA test was about, and Wellfed's position as well.

Which brings up the point that the million could be won with someone else's paranormal invention. I guess that's allowable. Is it?

Say, Joe Blow invents a camera which anyone can use to photograph ghosts. I buy one, take the challenge with it, win a million, and Joe Blow gets nothing though he made the discovery. I guess it all boils down to who's the firstest with the mostest to step up to the challenge, and not necessarily to whom the most credit is due.
 
I agree. [edit: with BPSCG and Mordak, I mean.]

That LostAngeles can't* aurally detect a difference between a treated and untreated CD says only that LostAngeles can't aurally detect a difference. In itself, it doesn't say anything about someone else being able to, nor does it suggest that LostAngeles is using the right methodology to measure a difference.

(* Naughty me, I'm assuming the result before the test. Still, it's a reasonable expectation from this part of the peanut gallery.)

The "Steven Howard Protocol" is useful only to support or reject the original hypothesis: that Mr. Anda (or LostAngeles) allegedly can hear a difference.

To support the conclusion that nobody can, by preponderence of evidence using the "Steven Howard Protocol", you would need to conduct a great many trials by a great many people, which falls into the reason why you can't prove a large negative. The scale is beyond our means.

There was, however, an earlier suggestion for a protocol that would work fine.

Take two identical, untreated CDs. One is the test CD, the other is the control CD.

Drop one in each of a pair of CD Rom drives. Compare the bit sequences. (unix/linux/BSD cmp command will do this.) If they are identical, we're ready to start with this pair. If they are different before the treatment, the pair must be rejected, start again with the next pair.

Treat one CD while the control CD is safely out of range.

Then repeat the comparison. If both CDs are still identical, one can safely conclude that the GSIC had no effect on the test CD.

Repeat the test with the next pair of identical, untreated CDs, until a statistically appropriate number of trials are conducted.

If the number is zero, as expected, one keeps the null hypothesis: that GSIC is simply an expensive keychain (drill your own hole.)
 
Moose said:
I agree. [edit: with BPSCG and Mordak, I mean.]

That LostAngeles can't* aurally detect a difference between a treated and untreated CD says only that LostAngeles can't aurally detect a difference. In itself, it doesn't say anything about someone else being able to, nor does it suggest that LostAngeles is using the right methodology to measure a difference.

(* Naughty me, I'm assuming the result before the test. Still, it's a reasonable expectation from this part of the peanut gallery.)

Although for her benefit, I hope otherwise - but I expect you're correct. :)

Moose said:


There was, however, an earlier suggestion for a protocol that would work fine.

Take two identical, untreated CDs. One is the test CD, the other is the control CD.

Drop one in each of a pair of CD Rom drives. Compare the bit sequences. (unix/linux/BSD cmp command will do this.) If they are identical, we're ready to start with this pair. If they are different before the treatment, the pair must be rejected, start again with the next pair.

Treat one CD while the control CD is safely out of range.

Then repeat the comparison. If both CDs are still identical, one can safely conclude that the GSIC had no effect on the test CD.

Repeat the test with the next pair of identical, untreated CDs, until a statistically appropriate number of trials are conducted.

If the number is zero, as expected, one keeps the null hypothesis: that GSIC is simply an expensive keychain (drill your own hole.)

FYI, this was done by an audiophile (other than Mr. Anda), post his application to JREF. The results were exactly as anticipated - no change. The CD's were identical.

I'm sure you're shocked by this revelation. :D
 
jmercer said:
FYI, this was done by an audiophile (other than Mr. Anda), post his application to JREF. The results were exactly as anticipated - no change. The CD's were identical.

I'm sure you're shocked by this revelation. :D
Given this finding, is there any legal redress against the people selling this thing? I would have thought that Trading Standards (or equivalent in whatever country it is on sale in) might be interested in a product which can be objectively demonstrated to do nothing at all.

I know that in fact Trading Standards have like two men and a dog to police the entire country, but in theory - would there be some sort of woo explanation that could be used to keep the heavy hand of the law from fingering the collar, or would the evidence of the unchanging bit sequences be sufficient to call them to account? Anybody have any opinions?

Rolfe.
 
jmercer said:
Although for her benefit, I hope otherwise - but I expect you're correct. :)

I don't. Not unless I get a cut, anyway. :D

FYI, this was done by an audiophile (other than Mr. Anda), post his application to JREF. The results were exactly as anticipated - no change. The CD's were identical.

That's where I'd gotten the suggestion in the first place, although I hadn't realized (or remembered) that it had actually been performed.

I'm sure you're shocked by this revelation. :D

Simply floored. :)
 
Moose said:
Take two identical, untreated CDs. One is the test CD, the other is the control CD.

Drop one in each of a pair of CD Rom drives. Compare the bit sequences. (unix/linux/BSD cmp command will do this.) If they are identical, we're ready to start with this pair. If they are different before the treatment, the pair must be rejected, start again with the next pair.

Treat one CD while the control CD is safely out of range.

Then repeat the comparison. If both CDs are still identical, one can safely conclude that the GSIC had no effect on the test CD.

Repeat the test with the next pair of identical, untreated CDs, until a statistically appropriate number of trials are conducted.

If the number is zero, as expected, one keeps the null hypothesis: that GSIC is simply an expensive keychain (drill your own hole.)
Which takes us back to the original challenge claim. Wellfed was asserting he could detect a GSIC-treated disc, a claim whch would be paranormal only if nobody else could detect it. Logically, a treated disc in which the sequence of zero and one bits was identical to the sequence in an untreated disc, would sound identical to the untreated disc; someone who could detect the difference would truly be demonstrating something paranormal, akin to being able to detect the orientation of a flea from a hundred meters away.*

If the GSIC changes the sound from the CD so that everyone can detect the difference, without changing the bit sequence, that would be a demonstration of a paranormal device, akin to a perpetual motion machine.

* Mark Twain had some fun in this vein in his essay Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses
The reader will find some examples of Cooper's high talent for inaccurate observation in the account of the shooting-match in "The Pathfinder."
A common wrought nail was driven lightly into the target, its head having been first touched with paint.
The color of the paint is not stated -- an important omission, but Cooper deals freely in important omissions. No, after all, it was not an important omission; for this nail-head is a hundred yards from the marksmen, and could not be seen at that distance, no matter what its color might be. How far can the best eyes see a common housefly? A hundred yards? It is quite impossible. Very well; eyes that cannot see a house-fly that is a hundred yards away cannot see an ordinary nail-head at that distance, for the size of the two objects is the same. It takes a keen eye to see a fly or a nail-head at fifty yards -- one hundred and fifty-feet. Can the reader do it?

The nail was lightly driven, its head painted, and game called. Then the Cooper miracles began. The bullet of the first marksman chipped an edge of the nail-head; the next man's bullet drove the nail a little way into the target -- and removed all the paint. Haven't the miracles gone far enough now? Not to suit Cooper; for the purpose of this whole scheme is to show off his prodigy, Deerslayer-Hawkeye-Long-Rifle-Leatherstocking-Pathfinder-Bumppo before the ladies.
"Be all ready to clench it, boys!" cried out Pathfinder, stepping into his friend's tracks the instant they were vacant. "Never mind a new nail; I can see that, though the paint is gone, and what I can see I can hit at a hundred yards, though it were only a mosquito's eye. Be ready to clench!"

The rifle cracked, the bullet sped its way, and the head of the nail was buried in the wood, covered by the piece of flattened lead.
There, you see, is a man who could hunt flies with a rifle, and command a ducal salary in a Wild West show to-day if we had him back with us.

The recorded feat is certainly surprising just as it stands; but it is not surprising enough for Cooper. Cooper adds a touch. He has made Pathfinder do this miracle with another man's rifle; and not only that, but Pathfinder did not have even the advantage of loading it himself. He had everything against him, and yet he made that impossible shot; and not only made it, but did it with absolute confidence, saying, "Be ready to clench." Now a person like that would have undertaken that same feat with a brickbat, and with Cooper to help he would have achieved it, too.

Pathfinder showed off handsomely that day before the ladies. His very first feat a thing which no Wild West show can touch. He was standing with the group of marksmen, observing -- a hundred yards from the target, mind; one Jasper rasper raised his rifle and drove the center of the bull's-eye. Then the Quartermaster fired. The target exhibited no result this time. There was a laugh. "It's a dead miss," said Major Lundie. Pathfinder waited an impressive moment or two; then said, in that calm, indifferent, know-it-all way of his, "No, Major, he has covered Jasper's bullet, as will be seen if any one will take the trouble to examine the target."

Wasn't it remarkable! How could he see that little pellet fly through the air and enter that distant bullet-hole? Yet that is what he did; for nothing is impossible to a Cooper person. Did any of those people have any deep-seated doubts about this thing? No; for that would imply sanity, and these were all Cooper people.
The respect for Pathfinder's skill and for his quickness and accuracy of sight [the italics are mine] was so profound and general, that the instant he made this declaration the spectators began to distrust their own opinions, and a dozen rushed to the target in order to ascertain the fact. There, sure enough, it was found that the Quartermaster's bullet had gone through the hole made by Jasper's, and that, too, so accurately as to require a minute examination to be certain of the circumstance, which, however, was soon clearly established by discovering one bullet over the other in the stump against which the target was placed.
They made a "minute" examination; but never mind, how could they know that there were two bullets in that hole without digging the latest one out? for neither probe nor eyesight could prove the presence of any more than one bullet. Did they dig? No; as we shall see. It is the Pathfinder's turn now; he steps out before the ladies, takes aim, and fires.

But, alas! here is a disappointment; in incredible, an unimaginable disappointment -- for the target's aspect is unchanged; there is nothing there but that same old bullet hole!
”If one dared to hint at such a thing," cried Major Duncan, "I should say that the Pathfinder has also missed the target."
As nobody had missed it yet, the "also" was not necessary; but never mind about that, for the Pathfinder is going to speak.
"No, no, Major," said he, confidently, "that would be a risky declaration. I didn't load the piece, and can't say what was in it; but if it was lead, you will find the bullet driving down those of the Quartermaster and Jasper, else is not my name Pathfinder."
A shout from the target announced the truth of this assertion.
Is the miracle sufficient as it stands? Not for Cooper. The Pathfinder speaks again, as he "now slowly advances toward the stage occupied by the females":
"That's not all, boys, that's not all; if you find the target touched at all, I'll own to a miss. The Quartermaster cut the wood, but you'll find no wood cut by that last messenger."
The miracle is at last complete. He knew -- doubtless saw -- at the distance of a hundred yards -- this his bullet had passed into the hole without fraying the edges. There were now three bullets in that one hole -- three bullets embedded processionally in the body of the stump back of the target. Everybody knew this -- somehow or other -- and yet nobody had dug any of them out to make sure. Cooper is not a close observer, but he is interesting. He is certainly always that, no matter what happens. And he is more interesting when he is not noticing what he is about than when he is. This is a considerable merit.
 
Rolfe said:
Given this finding, is there any legal redress against the people selling this thing? I would have thought that Trading Standards (or equivalent in whatever country it is on sale in) might be interested in a product which can be objectively demonstrated to do nothing at all.

I know that in fact Trading Standards have like two men and a dog to police the entire country, but in theory - would there be some sort of woo explanation that could be used to keep the heavy hand of the law from fingering the collar, or would the evidence of the unchanging bit sequences be sufficient to call them to account? Anybody have any opinions?

Rolfe.
How's this?

The GSIC doesn't actually change the bit sequence of the treated CD. Rather, it aligns the polarity of the microscopic pits in the CD so that they are in uniform alignment with the laser that reads them. The CD player's onboard CPU therefore expends fewer cycles in data validation and error correction, resulting in a cleaner sound, increased S/N ratio, and a wider, fuller, enhanced soundstage.

Kinda like PentaWater...
 
BPSCG said:
Kinda like PentaWater...
Let's hope....

I understand that Trading Standards have actually gone after Pentawater recently, with some success. It was mentioned elsewhere on the forum.

Rolfe.
 
Mordak said:
I guess even the strictest of protocols won't be able to rule out the possibility of a sort of 'nocebo-like' effect. The listener disbelieving the effect (and rightly so) might render him/her less likely to notice a potential difference, even if he/she could have noticed it with an open mind. I don't know if such a bias would play a part in this experiment, but proponents of the GSIC device could at least use this as an argument to discredit quality of the test.

They will, count on it.

On the other hand, one might add some controls. In this case it might be a bit more difficult, since the mechanism is, well, hard to grok, but it's still possible to add some simple controls.
 
If the GSIC changes the sound from the CD so that everyone can detect the difference, without changing the bit sequence, that would be a demonstration of a paranormal device, akin to a perpetual motion machine.

I'm not quite sure if we're driving at the same thing or not, (I suspect we are), but this is precisely my point.

If everybody can hear it through proper double-blind testing, then the effect is real.

But it is sufficient to show that one person can hear the difference through double-blind testing to show that the effect exists.

However, it is nowhere near sufficient to show that one person cannot hear the effect to conclude the effect does not exist. Just like you can't conclude that sound doesn't exist by testing to see if a totally deaf person can hear a Beatles song.

You have to test everybody (or at least a significant random sampling of the population) in order to prove no detectable effect by preponderance of evidence.
 
Actually, it doesn't matter in a sense. If someone CAN hear the difference, it's paranormal because there can't BE a physical difference. If multiple people can hear a difference, it's paranormal because the GSIC has done something outside the bounds of known physics.

The question of whether or not only some people can hear the difference is problematic, but not in the sense of this specific challenge. And LA, if you win, please pay off my cars! ;)
 
Please....

LostAngeles said:
I presume Mr. Anda works a standard, U.S. 40 hour week. Mr. Anda couldn't be tested during such and such times because of reunions and kid's soccer games and graduations.

Here's my schedule:

On Mondays and Wednesdays, I have Calculus II Honors, followed by an hour and a half break before work, during which I do my language lab. I have a meeting after class on Wednesdays for the Honors section. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I have that same class, followed directly by Anthropology Honors. Then I go directly to work.

Uh, OK, we really don't need all this data about your day-to-day schedule. Reminds me of Anda, frankly, and I need no reminders.

The JREF itslef doesn't need ANY of this information, as the test date is determined by whomever will conduct the test - hopefully CFI-West in LA. We have nothing to do with it.

Regarding the protocol, once again we have a dummy chip.

It's gotta go. We rejected the notion of a dummy chip in the Anda negotiations, so I'm surprised it was even IN your protocol, especially considering how closely you followed that fiasco.

So let's kill that dummy chippy thingy and proceed asap.

I also strongly feel that this test will be immediately voided by any audiophile unless we can secure a truly excellent listening system. No walkmen or ipods. As the test will occur in LA, there are hundreds of audiophile houses who could be contacted about performing the test in an excellent, soundproof room with the best equipment. That's how it ought to be done.

I haven't read thru all the other posts on this thread but it seems there are many, so I'm sure I'll have more comments once I've seen them all.
 

Back
Top Bottom