• 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.

My Struggle

Wellfed

Banned
W
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
423
Here is the record of ALL email correspondence between JREF and myself. This record shown below was created by simply placing ALL email correspondence between myself and JREF in an independent folder, sorting by date, and using the export function of MS Outlook.

Privacy edits appear in this text as [privacy edit] except for Gr8wight’s email address which is now shown as [Gr8wight]. I have left the email addresses of JREF parties intact as they are published at this site anyway. Excepting my telephone number and email address I have allowed my privacy concerns, noted in the correspondence, to remain. I have also edited out the name and contact information of the JREF approved observer in my region.

______________________________________________


Subject Body From: (Name) From: (Address) From: (Type) To: (Name) To: (Address) To: (Type) CC: (Name) CC: (Address) CC: (Type) BCC: (Name) BCC: (Address) BCC: (Type) Billing Information Categories Importance Mileage Sensitivity
intelligent chip "Mr. Randi,



I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below



http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html



My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?



As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.



Sincerely,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'randi@randi.org' randi@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: intelligent chip "After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.

I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.

Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip

Mr. Randi,

I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html

My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?

As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.

Sincerely,

Michael Anda
" James Randi randi@randi.org SMTP 'Michael' [privacy edit] SMTP kramer@randi.org kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal
RE: intelligent chip "Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.



I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.



Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip



Mr. Randi,



I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below



http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html



My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?



As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.



Sincerely,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'randi@randi.org' randi@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: intelligent chip "No, please send in the application right away.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:11 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?

Michael Anda

-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.

I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.

Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.orgSubject: intelligent chip

Mr. Randi,

I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html

My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?

As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.

Sincerely,

Michael Anda
" James Randi randi@randi.org SMTP 'Michael' [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: intelligent chip "Do I include my proposed protocol, or simply what I believe my ability to be? Also, I am not sure that I saw an application per se. I noticed the area at the bottom outlining the Challenge elements that had a line for a notarized signature, is this the application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:47 PM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



No, please send in the application right away.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:11 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.



I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.



Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip



Mr. Randi,



I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below



http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html



My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?



As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.



Sincerely,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'randi@randi.org' randi@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: intelligent chip "Later today, I’ll try to send you some observations on your protocol. Please wait until then.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 5:12 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

Do I include my proposed protocol, or simply what I believe my ability to be? Also, I am not sure that I saw an application per se. I noticed the area at the bottom outlining the Challenge elements that had a line for a notarized signature, is this the application?

Michael Anda

-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:47 PM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

No, please send in the application right away.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:11 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?

Michael Anda

-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip

After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.

I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.

Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.

James Randi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip

Mr. Randi,

I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html

My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?

As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.

Sincerely,

Michael Anda
" James Randi randi@randi.org SMTP 'Michael' [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: intelligent chip "Will do, and thank you for considering my proposal. I’d like to take the time to say that if any of my comments have appeared offensive please accept my apologies. These debates tend to get a little emotional and I would like you to know that if I have made any inappropriate comments that pertain to you directly that they were in fact made out of exasperation with those that invoke your Challenge. I have no reason to believe you anything less than honorable.



Michae Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:31 AM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Later today, I’ll try to send you some observations on your protocol. Please wait until then.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 5:12 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Do I include my proposed protocol, or simply what I believe my ability to be? Also, I am not sure that I saw an application per se. I noticed the area at the bottom outlining the Challenge elements that had a line for a notarized signature, is this the application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:47 PM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



No, please send in the application right away.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]] Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:11 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.


I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.



Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip



Mr. Randi,



I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below



http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html



My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?



As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.


Sincerely,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'randi@randi.org' randi@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: intelligent chip "Mr. Randi,



Would you mind giving me an update as to how things are progressing with my protocol examination? When would you like for me to submit my application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 8:31 AM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Later today, I’ll try to send you some observations on your protocol. Please wait until then.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 5:12 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Do I include my proposed protocol, or simply what I believe my ability to be? Also, I am not sure that I saw an application per se. I noticed the area at the bottom outlining the Challenge elements that had a line for a notarized signature, is this the application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:47 PM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



No, please send in the application right away.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:11 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



Thank you. Should I wait until I hear back from you before submitting an application?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: James Randi [mailto:randi@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:29 PM
To: 'Michael'
Cc: kramer@randi.org
Subject: RE: intelligent chip



After just a brief examination of your protocol, I will say that it appears proper and acceptable.



I’ll have more time during the week to examine it in more detail, and I’ll get back to you.



Very busy right now with another project. Apologies.



James Randi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 1:58 PM
To: randi@randi.org
Subject: intelligent chip



Mr. Randi,



I have the desire to take your Million Dollar Challenge and developed what I believe to be a fair testing. My initial thoughts on the subject are available at the link below



http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/366947.html



My moniker at Audio Asylum is Wellfed. Would you let me know what you think of my test? Also, I now notice you are located in Fort Lauderdale Florida. I have been thinking of coming your way for a visit in the near future. Could we perhaps do preliminary testing on a system other than my own while I’m down your way?



As you know us audiphiles get pretty riled up. Please don’t take offense at our rantings. The whole business gets pretty involved, but I have no legitimate reason to believe your Challenge isn’t on the up and up. If I have implied as much it has presumably been due to exasperation with those that invoke your challenge.



Sincerely,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'randi@randi.org' randi@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
protocol "Mr. Kramer,



I looked at the two threads you pointed me towards and didn’t really see anything too hard to overcome. Obviously the hidden camera stuff seem over the top to me. I use a transport/DAC setup. Would a visual inspection of my transport suffice to alleviate this concern?



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org)' Kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: protocol "Yes, indeed, Michael, there are some in the forum who think that every Challenge applicants is either insane or a fraud. They are eternally suspicious, and generally, they focus on that when considering protocol design. There are also many others who are not like that.

There will be no need for a hidden camera. Also, an inspection of the equipment would be fine.

Our first question is this; have you yourself conducted a simple double-blind test of your claim? It is not a formal requirement that you do so, but we STRONGLY suggest it. Enlist the aid of a friend. If you need help in designing a simple, double-blind test, we can assist you in that area.

Here are some preliminary comments from Randi regarding the protocol.

1- Doing it in your home is fine.
2- ""At my discretion"" will not work. It has to be at OUR discretion.
3- ""ONE OF THESE DISCS""...which one, and how will it be chosen?
4- ""PLAYED IN THEIR ENTIRETY""...will it be audible to all observers or will you use headphones?
5- ""I WILL USE TWO MARKERS""...No - WE will use ONE marker.

There will be more such questions as this process continues.

We are anxious to agree to as much of your protocol as humanly possible. Onward & Upward.

-Kramer
=================================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:03 PM
Subject: protocol

Mr. Kramer,

I looked at the two threads you pointed me towards and didn’t really see anything too hard to overcome. Obviously the hidden camera stuff seem over the top to me. I use a transport/DAC setup. Would a visual inspection of my transport suffice to alleviate this concern?- Michael Anda

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: protocol "Thanks Kramer,



Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.



1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.





What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.



Sincerely,



Michael Anda







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 10:27 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: protocol



Yes, indeed, Michael, there are some in the forum who think that every Challenge applicants is either insane or a fraud. They are eternally suspicious, and generally, they focus on that when considering protocol design. There are also many others who are not like that.



There will be no need for a hidden camera. Also, an inspection of the equipment would be fine.



Our first question is this; have you yourself conducted a simple double-blind test of your claim? It is not a formal requirement that you do so, but we STRONGLY suggest it. Enlist the aid of a friend. If you need help in designing a simple, double-blind test, we can assist you in that area.



Here are some preliminary comments from Randi regarding the protocol.



1- Doing it in your home is fine.

2- ""At my discretion"" will not work. It has to be at OUR discretion.

3- ""ONE OF THESE DISCS""...which one, and how will it be chosen?

4- ""PLAYED IN THEIR ENTIRETY""...will it be audible to all observers or will you use headphones?

5- ""I WILL USE TWO MARKERS""...No - WE will use ONE marker.



There will be more such questions as this process continues.



We are anxious to agree to as much of your protocol as humanly possible. Onward & Upward.



-Kramer

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 4:03 PM

Subject: protocol

Mr. Kramer,

I looked at the two threads you pointed me towards and didn’t really see anything too hard to overcome. Obviously the hidden camera stuff seem over the top to me. I use a transport/DAC setup. Would a visual inspection of my transport suffice to alleviate this concern?- Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
headphones "Mr. Kramer,



BTW, do you prefer to be addressed as Kramer or Mr. Kramer? FWIW, I have decided against trying to use headphones for the Challenge testing.



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org)' Kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: protocol "

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: protocol


Thanks Kramer,



Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.



1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.



What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.

Sincerely, Michael Anda

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: protocol "Hello Michael,
Neither Randi nor I see any real difficulty in the Walker polsih thingy, but why would it be necessary?
As an audiophile, surely you must know the basic dfference between analog media (such as vinyl records) and digital media (cd's, dvd's). As the data on a cd is digitally stored, cleaning may prevent skipping or misreading, but the actual sound quality ought not to be affected in any way. So why the need to ""treat"" the cd's before the test?
We want you to be comfortable, and there is no reason reject this demand you've made. But we'd be happier if it wasn't part of the test procedure. KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. (just an expression - no insult intended).

Regarding your point 4 here, please refer to my previous statement about digital vs. analog media. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that, as with vinyl, there would be ANY difference between the first play and subsequent plays. A cd should sound the same after ten years as it did the day it was opened and played for the first time. If the cd wears out, the data may become unreadable, but so long as it works, the sound should be identical. I would heartily agree that, as you admit, this is your ""nutty audiophile side"" working overtime here, and again, KEEP IT SIMPLE. If you must do this, we won't object, but we also won't be entertaining any notion that it'll make the slightest difference.

Shouldn't we be able to test this claim without any listening session by entering the data on the chip and non-chip CD into a computer mastering program and then comparing the two sets of sound waves on a mastering chart? One look will tell whether or not there is any difference in quality. And frankly, if you're saying that no difference would be visible, and that the difference would only be discernable audibley, well, then your claim would definitely be a paranormal one, and, should you prove it, you'd definitely win the big bucks.

-Kramer, JREF
=======================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.

1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.



What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.



Sincerely, Michael Anda

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: protocol "Hello Michael,
Things are getting somewhat confusing here. We really don't understand your points regarding the marker at all. It all seems quite unnecessary. You just tell us which one is treated and which one isn't. It's that simple. We do NOT need this whole marker thing, so let's toss it out. KEEP IT SIMPLE. That's the basic rule, and it's always best for all parties to keep that dictum firmly in mind.

#2- You may take breaks as needed.

#3- Regarding the title choice, this is also unnecessary. You and the observors will go and buy the cd's at a store convenient to you, prior to the test. Simple. Done. No shipping, no waiting for them to arrive, no postponement of the test if they don't arrive in time.

#4- If you really wish to be tested at the JREF with headphones, Randi would love to play host to this test.

#5- Switching back and forth between the two discs (""Q-seeing"", as we record producers call it) is fine. And you can ""treat"" the discs if you like.

The test can be VERY simple, Michael. Let's work together to make it such.

-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: RE: protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.

1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.

What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.

Sincerely,Michael Anda

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: headphones "Just Kramer will do.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:15 PM
Subject: headphones


Mr. Kramer,



BTW, do you prefer to be addressed as Kramer or Mr. Kramer? FWIW, I have decided against trying to use headphones for the Challenge testing.



Michael Anda


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: protocol "Kramer,



I find the Walker Vivid to be effective and I believe it would remove a potential variable, not add one. I’d like this stipulation to remain. We could move to another brand if desired.



My point with the playing of the two discs in their entirety primarily allows for system warmup, I also like the idea of listening to the music in a more natural form than the test will allow, as I’ve stated, I’m all about limiting variables and I have no reason to think that playing a CD affects its performance in any way, shape, or form, but this request can not hurt and coupled with the other benefits I’ve noted I’d like to see the stipulation remain.



Your last point has been debated at length on Audio Asylum, I know very little about CD operations, and could not tell you if this would prove effective, or not. Steve Cortez at Audio Asylum has done this sort of test and found GSIC treated discs to be identical to non-treated in terms of bit comparisons. He also doesn’t note any sonic improvement.



Michael






-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:07 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: protocol



Hello Michael,

Neither Randi nor I see any real difficulty in the Walker polsih thingy, but why would it be necessary?

As an audiophile, surely you must know the basic dfference between analog media (such as vinyl records) and digital media (cd's, dvd's). As the data on a cd is digitally stored, cleaning may prevent skipping or misreading, but the actual sound quality ought not to be affected in any way. So why the need to ""treat"" the cd's before the test?

We want you to be comfortable, and there is no reason reject this demand you've made. But we'd be happier if it wasn't part of the test procedure. KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. (just an expression - no insult intended).



Regarding your point 4 here, please refer to my previous statement about digital vs. analog media. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe that, as with vinyl, there would be ANY difference between the first play and subsequent plays. A cd should sound the same after ten years as it did the day it was opened and played for the first time. If the cd wears out, the data may become unreadable, but so long as it works, the sound should be identical. I would heartily agree that, as you admit, this is your ""nutty audiophile side"" working overtime here, and again, KEEP IT SIMPLE. If you must do this, we won't object, but we also won't be entertaining any notion that it'll make the slightest difference.



Shouldn't we be able to test this claim without any listening session by entering the data on the chip and non-chip CD into a computer mastering program and then comparing the two sets of sound waves on a mastering chart? One look will tell whether or not there is any difference in quality. And frankly, if you're saying that no difference would be visible, and that the difference would only be discernable audibley, well, then your claim would definitely be a paranormal one, and, should you prove it, you'd definitely win the big bucks.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:09 PM

Subject: RE: protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.

1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.



What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.



Sincerely, Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: protocol "Kramer,



Obviously I am not accustomed to working and thinking in these terms so I appreciate you bearing with me. I agree the simpler the better.



2) Thank you, I suspect I’m going to need them.

3) I’m not sure if this will be as simple you think, especically in Fargo, ND. My claim rests on my familiarity with the music. Depending on the title I choose availibility probably be difficult. I don’t tend to listen to a lot of current pop music.

4) Would’ve been great, but I am not familiar with headphone use and one of the cues I will be looking for in the test is not noted as being a strength of headphones.

5) Thank you, by “treat” I assume you mean the Vivid or some other treatment. Actually by the time we test I could be using another brand. I’d like to use whatever brand I am using for my own personal enjoyment at the time.



Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:59 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: protocol



Hello Michael,

Things are getting somewhat confusing here. We really don't understand your points regarding the marker at all. It all seems quite unnecessary. You just tell us which one is treated and which one isn't. It's that simple. We do NOT need this whole marker thing, so let's toss it out. KEEP IT SIMPLE. That's the basic rule, and it's always best for all parties to keep that dictum firmly in mind.



#2- You may take breaks as needed.



#3- Regarding the title choice, this is also unnecessary. You and the observors will go and buy the cd's at a store convenient to you, prior to the test. Simple. Done. No shipping, no waiting for them to arrive, no postponement of the test if they don't arrive in time.



#4- If you really wish to be tested at the JREF with headphones, Randi would love to play host to this test.



#5- Switching back and forth between the two discs (""Q-seeing"", as we record producers call it) is fine. And you can ""treat"" the discs if you like.



The test can be VERY simple, Michael. Let's work together to make it such.



-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.



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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:09 PM

Subject: RE: protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Yes, I have seen some quite reasonable folks on your forum and it does my heart good.

1) This is good because this is where I have a comfort level with my claim. (see point 4 for a potential alternative)

2) The “at my discretion” element was simply to allow myself to take a break and leave my listening position when I want to. I assume I can do this at any time without this stipulation; so no problem here.

3) Let me know when you think the title needs to selected. I continue to find discs that respond more favorably to the treatment. I picture ordering the two copies shortly before the test is conducted with delivery the day of testing while both parties are present to take delivery.

4) As for this stipulation it is simply to allow the system to warm up and allow for additional familiarity with the title shortly before testing. I also like the idea of the discs being subjected to one entire playing as I don’t know if playing a disc for the first time could introduce any variables. I hadn’t planned on using headphones, but that is a really good idea. This idea may allow me to come down your way to be tested. Let me consider this idea for a little while.

5) My intent with this stipulation was simply to have a marker to identify the state of the disc in the player at the time of the identification. I envisioned switching back and forth between the two discs and then stopping when I have made a determination. If I were to hear the effect on a disc one moment and then choose to have the other disc played, I would like to make the identification immediately, hence the two markers. The distance between my listening position and the transport is roughly 8’ or more. I can’t see where there could be any sleight of hand under this scenario. The unused marker could remain in the care of an observer. I am open to suggestions.

What do you think of my Walker Vivid stipulation? I would like to use some form of cleaning/polishing solution which doesn’t necessarily have to be Walker. My nutty audiophile side believes there are different sonic signatures to various products so I would like to acclimate myself to another brand if we choose to make a change. Bear in mind that I would like to eliminate every conceivable variable and be left with the purest state possible with the GSIC treatment being the ONLY variable.

Sincerely,Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: headphones "Kramer,



One other note, my 30th high-school reunion is coming up this summer. I haven’t heard dates yet, but I would definitely like to avoid any notoriety at least until after this event. I would like to avoid all notoriety completely if possible. What kind of time frame is typical to iron out the protocol, do the preliminary testing, and assuming I pass, do the final testing? I would like to see the final testing take place Aug. 1, 2005 or later.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 3:05 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: headphones



Just Kramer will do.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 1:15 PM

Subject: headphones



Mr. Kramer,



BTW, do you prefer to be addressed as Kramer or Mr. Kramer? FWIW, I have decided against trying to use headphones for the Challenge testing.


Michael Anda


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
phone call "Kramer,



I would like to give you a phone call to discuss the marker issue. What is a good time to reach you? Another thing we haven’t discussed is my use of a CD “mat” that is placed on top of the disc in the transport.



Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org)' Kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: protocol "Hello Michael,
Are you actually saying that no cd shop in the Fargo area will have a brand new, sealed and unplayed copy of a cd you are familiar with? Is this really even possible?
I really do think that the cd must be purchased locally prior to the test, with the investigators on hand.
-Kramer, JREF
===============================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: protocol

Kramer,

Obviously I am not accustomed to working and thinking in these terms so I appreciate you bearing with me. I agree the simpler the better.

2) Thank you, I suspect I’m going to need them.

3) I’m not sure if this will be as simple you think, especically in Fargo, ND. My claim rests on my familiarity with the music. Depending on the title I choose availibility probably be difficult. I don’t tend to listen to a lot of current pop music.

4) Would’ve been great, but I am not familiar with headphone use and one of the cues I will be looking for in the test is not noted as being a strength of headphones.

5) Thank you, by “treat” I assume you mean the Vivid or some other treatment. Actually by the time we test I could be using another brand. I’d like to use whatever brand I am using for my own personal enjoyment at the time.--Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: headphones "Michael,
We were working under the assumption that we shared an interest in testing this claim expeditiously.
Let's just pick this up again in July, at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you then.
-Kramer, JREF
======================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: headphones

Kramer,

One other note, my 30th high-school reunion is coming up this summer. I haven’t heard dates yet, but I would definitely like to avoid any notoriety at least until after this event. I would like to avoid all notoriety completely if possible. What kind of time frame is typical to iron out the protocol, do the preliminary testing, and assuming I pass, do the final testing? I would like to see the final testing take place Aug. 1, 2005 or later.- Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: phone call "July would be a good time to reach me.
-Kramer, JREF
==========================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:21 PM
Subject: phone call


Kramer,



I would like to give you a phone call to discuss the marker issue. What is a good time to reach you? Another thing we haven’t discussed is my use of a CD “mat” that is placed on top of the disc in the transport.



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.2 - Release Date: 3/11/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
JREF login "For some reason I am not allowed to post to your website. My username is Wellfed.

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'linda@randi.org' linda@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
one more afterthought "Assuming we test with my system there will need to be provision for any tube failure. This has never happened to me before, but if it were to occur I would need roughly 30 minutes to replace tube(s) and re-bias.



Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org) Kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: discussion forum access "Yes you do. Email the webmaster if problems persist.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: discussion forum access


Kramer,



For some reason I do not have permission to post at the JREF Forum.



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: one more afterthought "July.
-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:38 AM
Subject: one more afterthought


Assuming we test with my system there will need to be provision for any tube failure. This has never happened to me before, but if it were to occur I would need roughly 30 minutes to replace tube(s) and re-bias.



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: one more afterthought "Kramer,



July is fine. I do think it prudent to hammer out the protocol ASAP, but I am not going to tell you how to run your business.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: one more afterthought



July.

-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: KRAMER

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:38 AM

Subject: one more afterthought



Assuming we test with my system there will need to be provision for any tube failure. This has never happened to me before, but if it were to occur I would need roughly 30 minutes to replace tube(s) and re-bias.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: discussion forum access "Kramer,



I do not have access to posting priveleges. I wrote to the webmaster last night to report the problem.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: discussion forum access



Yes you do. Email the webmaster if problems persist.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:32 AM

Subject: discussion forum access



Kramer,



For some reason I do not have permission to post at the JREF Forum.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: discussion forum access "Kramer,



Problems persist. The only contact I can make is with you, Linda, and Mr. Randi. I have wrote to Linda with no response. I would like to be able to respond on the Forum as soon as is humanly possible. It has been about 24 hours since I was last able to post on JREF.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: discussion forum access



Yes you do. Email the webmaster if problems persist.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:32 AM

Subject: discussion forum access



Kramer,



For some reason I do not have permission to post at the JREF Forum.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
posting access "I am not sure if you are the webmaster; I haven’t found a link to anyone claiming that title, but I have not been able to post any thread for 24 hours. Your assistance is appreciated.



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'linda@randi.org' linda@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: discussion forum access "Linda's mother took a bad fall early Thursday and she has not been in to the office since. Please give her until Monday or Tuesday to respond to you. She'll fix the problem quickly, whatever it may be.
-Kramer, JREF
==========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: discussion forum access


Kramer,



Problems persist. The only contact I can make is with you, Linda, and Mr. Randi. I have wrote to Linda with no response. I would like to be able to respond on the Forum as soon as is humanly possible. It has been about 24 hours since I was last able to post on JREF.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: discussion forum access



Yes you do. Email the webmaster if problems persist.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:32 AM

Subject: discussion forum access



Kramer,



For some reason I do not have permission to post at the JREF Forum.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: discussion forum access "Thank you Kramer.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:44 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: discussion forum access



Linda's mother took a bad fall early Thursday and she has not been in to the office since. Please give her until Monday or Tuesday to respond to you. She'll fix the problem quickly, whatever it may be.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 6:50 PM

Subject: RE: discussion forum access



Kramer,



Problems persist. The only contact I can make is with you, Linda, and Mr. Randi. I have wrote to Linda with no response. I would like to be able to respond on the Forum as soon as is humanly possible. It has been about 24 hours since I was last able to post on JREF.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:37 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: discussion forum access



Yes you do. Email the webmaster if problems persist.
----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:32 AM

Subject: discussion forum access



Kramer,



For some reason I do not have permission to post at the JREF Forum.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.3 - Release Date: 3/15/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: JREF login "Thank you. I will check it out.



-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Shallenberger [mailto:linda@randi.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:23 PM
To: 'Michael'
Subject: RE: JREF login



For some reason, our administrator hasn’t handled any new registrations for a few days. I’ve changed your status and you should be ok now.

Linda



_____

From: Michael [mailto:[privacy edit]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:21 PM
To: linda@randi.org
Subject: JREF login



For some reason I am not allowed to post to your website. My username is Wellfed.

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Linda Shallenberger' linda@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
kramer here "Hello Michael,

It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.

[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:

[privacy edit]

Let's get it rolling.

-Kramer, JREF
" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP [privacy edit] [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
steven howard protocol proposal "Here's a completely different protocol that doesn't require multiple copies of each CD and allows the claimant to put green highlighters or any other magical substance on them to his heart's content.

The only drawback is that this is based on the original claim (""I can listen to a CD and tell you whether or not it's had the GSIC treatment"") and not the second version (""I can listen to a GSIC-treated CD and a non-GSIC-treated copy of that same CD, switching back and forth between them, and tell you that they're different"").

Materials needed:
Eleven new CDs. These can include multiple copies of the same disc, or not.
One GSIC device. (The ""real device"")
One piece of wood or plastic the same general size, shape, and weight of a GSIC device. (The ""dummy device"")
A paper lunch sack or other opaque container.

People involved:
The applicant (A) and two testers (T1 and T2).

The setup:

Two completely separate rooms. A is in one room with the stereo equipment, where he remains throughout the test. T1 is in the other room, where he remains throughout the test. T2 will move back and forth between the two rooms.

Demonstration:

A and T2 unseal the first CD. A does whatever non-GSIC voodoo he wants to the CD and then listens to it. T2 shows A the dummy device, places it into the container, places the container on top of the CD player and plays it, exactly as if applying the GSIC treatment. A listens to the CD again and verifies that the sound is unchanged. T2 now shows A the real device, places it into the container, and so on, repeating the process. A listens to the CD and confirms that the sound is improved. T2 takes the container and both devices to T1.

The experiment:

The experiment consists of ten rounds. Each round proceeds as follows:

In the listening room, A and T2 unseal the next CD and A does whatever he wants to it, then listens to it.

Meanwhile in the other room, T1 flips a coin. If it lands heads, he puts the real device into the container; if it's tails, the dummy device goes in instead. He records his choice and signals to T2, who comes in and picks up the container.

T2 takes the container back to the listening room, places it on top of the CD player, and plays the disc. He removes the container, A listens to the CD again and decides whether it sounds any different. His choice is recorded and then T2 returns the container to T1.

After ten iterations, A's answers are compared with T1's. If all ten match, A has been successful.

What do you think?


----------------end-----------------



This is Mr. Howard’s proposal exactly as he posted it.



I later responded to him with some minor changes I would expect.



If memory serves me, I asked that the 11th disc he mentions be a non GSIC treated reference disc that I could swap in and out to compare with the subject disc at will.



I will review my comments to him on the Forum to see if there is anything I am forgetting



We will need to establish the amount of time necessary to complete this test.



We will need to discuss whether burned copies or original CD’s are to be used. I haven’t established an opinion on the subject myself.



If possible, I think I would prefer that T2 leave the room as I make each identification.



A contingency plan for tube failure will need to be implemented.



I will get back to you via email after I’ve re-read the Forum discussion about Steven’s proposal. Steven, and I, had a mild disagreement over a few parameters. I don’t think that my requests altered the integrity of the test. His commentary was to the effect of “If the device makes such a big improvement you shouldn’t need the changes”, this element of the discussion went no further.



It is my hope that we are back on track with this process, I sense you are of the same mind.



























" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org)' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: kramer here "Thanks Kramer,



Just to be clear I have a fairly strong aversion to doing this in June. I just feel a little rushed with everything else on my plate. I do feel the need to settle into audiophile mode without any other distractions for a period of time to get my comfort level back to where it needs to be. Aug. 1 thru Aug. 15 would be a great time for me and would give me great peace of mind which I feel is essential to my success with this Challenge.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here



Hello Michael,



It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.



[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:



St. Kloud ESP Teaching Investigation Committee

Contact: [privacy edit] Coordinator,

Psychology Dept., St. Cloud State University

720 Fourth Avenue South 11 Whitney House St. Cloud, MN. 56301-4498

Phone: 320-308-2138 Email:[privacy edit]



Let's get it rolling.



-Kramer, JREF

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: kramer here "Kramer,



Do you want me to wait until we’ve established the dates and you get Mr. Randi’s estimation of the Steven Howard protocol before I make contact with [privacy edit]? Or should I touch base with him soon?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here



Hello Michael,



It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.



[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:



St. Kloud ESP Teaching Investigation Committee

Contact: [privacy edit] Coordinator,

Psychology Dept., St. Cloud State University

720 Fourth Avenue South 11 Whitney House St. Cloud, MN. 56301-4498

Phone: 320-308-2138 Email:[privacy edit]



Let's get it rolling.



-Kramer, JREF

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: kramer here "Michael, you JUST told me on the telephone that June would be ""fine"". This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about. What's to prevent you from changing your mind AGAIN once August rolls around? All this ""peace of mind"" stuff is really just more of what we hear ALL THE TIME from folks who never submit their claim to the test.

Let me be clear about this: if we determine a test date, and you agree to it, and then you back out, we will have no further dealings with you. I cannot tell you how many applicants put us through weeks or months of negotiations, only to back out when it came time for the test. We will NOT tolerate such vanities, and we absolutely refuse to drag our investigators through such muddy waters. They offer their expertise as volunteers, and we need our vaolunteers badly. We'd have few to chose from if we didn't exhibit some form of discretion regarding such waffling. If you keep saying one thing and then reversing your position, we'll simply won't ever be able to trust your sincerity.

Please understand that we will close your file if you cancel any agreed-upon test date.

-Kramer, JREF
========================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: kramer here

Thanks Kramer,

Just to be clear I have a fairly strong aversion to doing this in June. I just feel a little rushed with everything else on my plate. I do feel the need to settle into audiophile mode without any other distractions for a period of time to get my comfort level back to where it needs to be. Aug. 1 thru Aug. 15 would be a great time for me and would give me great peace of mind which I feel is essential to my success with this Challenge.---Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]

Hello Michael,

It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a

test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly.

We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.

[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:



St. Kloud ESP Teaching Investigation Committee

Contact: [privacy edit] Coordinator,

Psychology Dept., St. Cloud State University

720 Fourth Avenue South 11 Whitney House St. Cloud, MN. 56301-4498

Phone: 320-308-2138 Email:[privacy edit]



Let's get it rolling -Kramer, JREF

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: kramer here "The test date is established based upon [privacy edit]' availability. Again, [privacy edit] is a volunteer. We don't teel HIM when the test date is. You and he work it out together. Feel free to touch base with him but I strongly suggest that you decide conclusively when you can be tested, and then stick to it. Postpone and your file will be closed.
-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: kramer here


Kramer,



Do you want me to wait until we’ve established the dates and you get Mr. Randi’s estimation of the Steven Howard protocol before I make contact with [privacy edit]? Or should I touch base with him soon?



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here



Hello Michael,



It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.



[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:



St. Kloud ESP Teaching Investigation Committee

Contact: [privacy edit] Coordinator,

Psychology Dept., St. Cloud State University

720 Fourth Avenue South 11 Whitney House St. Cloud, MN. 56301-4498

Phone: 320-308-2138 Email:[privacy edit]



Let's get it rolling.



-Kramer, JREF


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 3/27/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: kramer here "Kramer,



I thought I was pretty clear about being reticent about June. If I recall correctly, I stated that June would be fine if that is what it was going to take to get this thing to happen. If you want to fine tune the protocol details over the next week or two and select a date on, or shortly after, Aug. 1 I would be overjoyed to submit unequivocably to being tested on that date with no further ado. If there is a reason that a June date is vital I would be willing to make due with a certain amount of reluctance. If we can avoid all reluctance, wouldn’t you consider that to be a good thing? I really don’t want this to be a sticking point. Aug. 1 is 4 months from tomorrow. If we can agree on Aug. 1, or thereabouts, as the date, I will enter into this test without ANY trepidation. I REALLY don’t want to have ANY trepidation. OTOH, I don’t want you to have any reservations either, so please let me know why a June date is considered important to JREF.



Michael Anda



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: kramer here



Michael, you JUST told me on the telephone that June would be ""fine"". This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about. What's to prevent you from changing your mind AGAIN once August rolls around? All this ""peace of mind"" stuff is really just more of what we hear ALL THE TIME from folks who never submit their claim to the test.



Let me be clear about this: if we determine a test date, and you agree to it, and then you back out, we will have no further dealings with you. I cannot tell you how many applicants put us through weeks or months of negotiations, only to back out when it came time for the test. We will NOT tolerate such vanities, and we absolutely refuse to drag our investigators through such muddy waters. They offer their expertise as volunteers, and we need our vaolunteers badly. We'd have few to chose from if we didn't exhibit some form of discretion regarding such waffling. If you keep saying one thing and then reversing your position, we'll simply won't ever be able to trust your sincerity.



Please understand that we will close your file if you cancel any agreed-upon test date.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:05 AM

Subject: RE: kramer here

Thanks Kramer,

Just to be clear I have a fairly strong aversion to doing this in June. I just feel a little rushed with everything else on my plate. I do feel the need to settle into audiophile mode without any other distractions for a period of time to get my comfort level back to where it needs to be. Aug. 1 thru Aug. 15 would be a great time for me and would give me great peace of mind which I feel is essential to my success with this Challenge.---Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]

Hello Michael,

It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a

test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly.

We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.

[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:



St. Kloud ESP Teaching Investigation Committee

Contact: [privacy edit] Coordinator,

Psychology Dept., St. Cloud State University

720 Fourth Avenue South 11 Whitney House St. Cloud, MN. 56301-4498

Phone: 320-308-2138 Email:[privacy edit]



Let's get it rolling -Kramer, JREF

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: kramer here "OK, now you're playing semantics games with me.
We don't want you to have any trepidation, either, but you will.
A June date isn't ""vital"", but it IS what got me interested in re-starting the protocol negotiations. Whatever. We certainly wouldn't want you to say you failed the test because you were nervous. You'll say that anyway, but it won't be because we pressured you into being tested in June, or whenever. You just let us know and we'll bend over backwards to accomodate you. You call the shots, Michael. By all means. Each and every comfort you require is yours for the asking.
I'll give Randi the test protocol in a couple of months, when we get closer to a time in which you think your level of trepidation is at an absolute minimum. I'm will NOT bother him with a protocol until then. It's utterly pointless.
And I'm NOT getting into this again until then. You've worn me out.
-Kramer, JREF
================================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: kramer here

Kramer,

I thought I was pretty clear about being reticent about June. If I recall correctly, I stated that June would be fine if that is what it was going to take to get this thing to happen. If you want to fine tune the protocol details over the next week or two and select a date on, or shortly after, Aug. 1 I would be overjoyed to submit unequivocably to being tested on that date with no further ado. If there is a reason that a June date is vital I would be willing to make due with a certain amount of reluctance. If we can avoid all reluctance, wouldn’t you consider that to be a good thing? I really don’t want this to be a sticking point. Aug. 1 is 4 months from tomorrow. If we can agree on Aug. 1, or thereabouts, as the date, I will enter into this test without ANY trepidation. I REALLY don’t want to have ANY trepidation. OTOH, I don’t want you to have any reservations either, so please let me know why a June date is considered important to JREF.---Michael Anda

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: personal relations "Dear Michael,

I work for The JREF. By calling the JREF Challenge ""a hoax"", you are calling me a fraud, plain and simple. This sentiment is supported in a BIG way by some of your other comments about me in the forum. Professionally, I am compelled to carry on with the protocol negotiations, but personally, I'd rather not engage you by voice contact.

I do not wish to talk to you on the phone. I think we can do everything that needs to be done via email. I really don't see the problem with that.

I respect your desire to keep this email personal, and will NOT post it anywhere on the JREF site or elsewhere.
I'm hoping that in return, you will respect MY wish to continue protocol negotiations via email only. Thanks.

-Kramer, JREF
=================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:01 PM
Subject: personal relations

Kramer,

If you are agreeable, I would like to give you a call tomorrow to discuss the personal issues that have cropped up between us. I do not want to discuss Challenge or Protocol matters with this requested conversation.

Despite current appearances I think you probably know in your heart that I desire good relations with you.

Do I have your permission to do so? I consider this request to be private and confidential.

Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: personal relations "Your comments about being accused of fraud hit home in a big way. I have people accusing me of the same over at Audio Asylum nearly every time I post to the subject of the GSIC. I sincerely apologize for this offense as I know the effect a statement like this has on oneself even though the accusation is patently false. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I really hope that our difficulties have been simply due to communications breakdowns. FWIW, yes, I experienced a meltdown, it seems to have been a self-fulfilling prophecy after you declare “Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:” This statement within the context of posting incomplete correspondence in Challenge Application thread where you also present the matter in an “I’m only giving you everything you yourself want” manner. I’d like to think this was an unintended mistake. I can tell you that I didn’t think so at the time. Hence my tirade. I would appreciate your view of my commentary in this email. If you would see fit to grant me a phone conversation over our personal issues I think it would be productive and healing. I did make a lot of pointed accusations and insinuations during my BIG fit. BTW, fits like this are not at all indicative of my true personality; I was simply tweaked in a MAJOR way at the perceived slight. I respect your wishes to avoid phone contact if you haven’t found my commentary here compelling enough to grant my request. For some reason my gut feeling is that we are going to continue to have some significant differences to deal with. Hopefully frustrations will be dealt with maturely and reasonably by us both. I apologize again for my outburst, presumably the bulk of which I still mean, but I don’t wish to impugn your personal integrity in any way, as this does not represent my true feelings about you. I’d also like you to know that I didn’t write any of my rants to trigger a response from you. I have issues with the way WE have both behaved over the course of this Challenge discussion. If you would like to keep public confrontations to a minimum I suggest we simply have more private communications to sort out questions and issues. This suggestion wouldn’t prevent us from expressing ourselves publicly, perhaps this practice might just reduce perceptual errors from biting us in the butt.



Respectfully,



Michael Anda







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:01 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: personal relations



Dear Michael,



I work for The JREF. By calling the JREF Challenge ""a hoax"", you are calling me a fraud, plain and simple. This sentiment is supported in a BIG way by some of your other comments about me in the forum. Professionally, I am compelled to carry on with the protocol negotiations, but personally, I'd rather not engage you by voice contact.



I do not wish to talk to you on the phone. I think we can do everything that needs to be done via email. I really don't see the problem with that.



I respect your desire to keep this email personal, and will NOT post it anywhere on the JREF site or elsewhere.

I'm hoping that in return, you will respect MY wish to continue protocol negotiations via email only. Thanks.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:01 PM

Subject: personal relations

Kramer,

If you are agreeable, I would like to give you a call tomorrow to discuss the personal issues that have cropped up between us. I do not want to discuss Challenge or Protocol matters with this requested conversation.

Despite current appearances I think you probably know in your heart that I desire good relations with you.

Do I have your permission to do so? I consider this request to be private and confidential.

Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: personal relations "You are trying to turn the matter of your CLAIM into a matter of our interpersonal ""healing"". I can assure you now and for the record that the only thing that concerns me is your claim. All else is tertiary.

Prove you want to be tested by agreeing to a protocol and submitting to a test.

-Kramer, JREF
=========================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: RE: personal relations


Your comments about being accused of fraud hit home in a big way. I have people accusing me of the same over at Audio Asylum nearly every time I post to the subject of the GSIC. I sincerely apologize for this offense as I know the effect a statement like this has on oneself even though the accusation is patently false. Like I’ve said elsewhere, I really hope that our difficulties have been simply due to communications breakdowns. FWIW, yes, I experienced a meltdown, it seems to have been a self-fulfilling prophecy after you declare “Now you'd better sit down 'cuz what follows may give you a cerebral whatever:” This statement within the context of posting incomplete correspondence in Challenge Application thread where you also present the matter in an “I’m only giving you everything you yourself want” manner. I’d like to think this was an unintended mistake. I can tell you that I didn’t think so at the time. Hence my tirade. I would appreciate your view of my commentary in this email. If you would see fit to grant me a phone conversation over our personal issues I think it would be productive and healing. I did make a lot of pointed accusations and insinuations during my BIG fit. BTW, fits like this are not at all indicative of my true personality; I was simply tweaked in a MAJOR way at the perceived slight. I respect your wishes to avoid phone contact if you haven’t found my commentary here compelling enough to grant my request. For some reason my gut feeling is that we are going to continue to have some significant differences to deal with. Hopefully frustrations will be dealt with maturely and reasonably by us both. I apologize again for my outburst, presumably the bulk of which I still mean, but I don’t wish to impugn your personal integrity in any way, as this does not represent my true feelings about you. I’d also like you to know that I didn’t write any of my rants to trigger a response from you. I have issues with the way WE have both behaved over the course of this Challenge discussion. If you would like to keep public confrontations to a minimum I suggest we simply have more private communications to sort out questions and issues. This suggestion wouldn’t prevent us from expressing ourselves publicly, perhaps this practice might just reduce perceptual errors from biting us in the butt.



Respectfully,



Michael Anda







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:01 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: personal relations



Dear Michael,



I work for The JREF. By calling the JREF Challenge ""a hoax"", you are calling me a fraud, plain and simple. This sentiment is supported in a BIG way by some of your other comments about me in the forum. Professionally, I am compelled to carry on with the protocol negotiations, but personally, I'd rather not engage you by voice contact.



I do not wish to talk to you on the phone. I think we can do everything that needs to be done via email. I really don't see the problem with that.



I respect your desire to keep this email personal, and will NOT post it anywhere on the JREF site or elsewhere.

I'm hoping that in return, you will respect MY wish to continue protocol negotiations via email only. Thanks.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:01 PM

Subject: personal relations

Kramer,

If you are agreeable, I would like to give you a call tomorrow to discuss the personal issues that have cropped up between us. I do not want to discuss Challenge or Protocol matters with this requested conversation.

Despite current appearances I think you probably know in your heart that I desire good relations with you.

Do I have your permission to do so? I consider this request to be private and confidential.

Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.3 - Release Date: 4/5/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: personal relations "Please just submit your revised protocol.
-Kramer, JREF Paranormal Clasims Dept.
================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:31 PM
Subject: RE: personal relations


No I’m not, but I would love to have a good relationship with you nonetheless. At this point I don’t expect for this to happen in the near future, if ever. Are you open to the possibility after testing is completed?



You’ve ruled out burned discs for our test, is there anything else from the discussion of my 2nd and 3rd protocol design attempts that you can tell me up front is a no no? I seek nothing less than to find a protocol that is fair, scientifically valid, and fully agreeble to both sides. I don’t want to see one stinkin’ escape portal possibility find its way into the protocol. Here’s what I know right now, you don’t want to use anything but commercially sealed discs used in the test and I don’t want to be tested anything less than 3 months after a protocol set in stone. I also have mentioned dates that are off-limits. Dates that are acceptable to me are August 1, thru August 20 and October 1 thru the anniversary date of the Challenge Application. I am agreeable to eliminating your concern about using burned discs, can I assume that the two items I mention as necessary are officially acceptable to you?



I have enlisted the help of a few people more acquainted with test protocols to help me design an acceptable protocol so my hope is that the design I submit to you is solid. I am turning all of my attention thru Sunday to my self-testing project, you can expect a protocol proposal in your email by days end Wednesday, April 13. It would facilitate the process greatly if you were to critique my 3rd protocol proposal. This is the protocol that called for 30 photo copies being secured in a safety-deposit box. You would have to read my 2nd proposal as my 3rd is basically an ammended version of the second. You can find these protocols on page 4 and 5 of the Audio Critic thread. I am really just looking for the methodologies that you find objectionable with the idea of avoiding their use, if possible, in the forthcoming proposal.



I apologize again for turning sour over the weekend, this was not at all characteristic behavior coming from me. In all fairness I see inapropriate behavior as having emanated from each of us.



Since I’ve mixed commenting on personal relations and protocol concerns in the same correspondence I’d like to have your feelings on what should be shared and what should remain private.



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: personal relations "You can expect to have this saf deposit box nonsense immediately rejected. It is the very definition of what we refer to as ""vanity"", and as such, it will NOT be catered to.
-Kramer
======================================
" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: personal relations "I didn’t think of it as a “vanity”, but I can accept its rejection without any difficulty that I am aware of. Your feedback is helpful and appreciated.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:32 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: personal relations



You can expect to have this saf deposit box nonsense immediately rejected. It is the very definition of what we refer to as ""vanity"", and as such, it will NOT be catered to.

-Kramer

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

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
me "Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do apologize for being a source of frustration to you, and now that I am completely stabilized over the edited email deal, let me tell you that my behavior over the weekend was unbecoming and wrong. I no doubt meant what I said (please refer to my next sentence), but my behavior in this was wrong period. I don’t even know if I want to re-read the record, I cringe at the thought, but despite appearances I want to assure you that comments such as questioning whether the JREF Challenge as not being real were more rhetorical than personal. FYI, I know that you don’t need to know this information as much as I need to confess it.



Shalom,



Michael Anda

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org) kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: me "I'm glad you feel better now.
-Kramer, JREF
=============================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:47 PM
Subject: me


Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do apologize for being a source of frustration to you, and now that I am completely stabilized over the edited email deal, let me tell you that my behavior over the weekend was unbecoming and wrong. I no doubt meant what I said (please refer to my next sentence), but my behavior in this was wrong period. I don’t even know if I want to re-read the record, I cringe at the thought, but despite appearances I want to assure you that comments such as questioning whether the JREF Challenge as not being real were more rhetorical than personal. FYI, I know that you don’t need to know this information as much as I need to confess it.



Shalom,



Michael Anda


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: me "Thank you.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:16 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: me



I'm glad you feel better now.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: KRAMER

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:47 PM

Subject: me



Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do apologize for being a source of frustration to you, and now that I am completely stabilized over the edited email deal, let me tell you that my behavior over the weekend was unbecoming and wrong. I no doubt meant what I said (please refer to my next sentence), but my behavior in this was wrong period. I don’t even know if I want to re-read the record, I cringe at the thought, but despite appearances I want to assure you that comments such as questioning whether the JREF Challenge as not being real were more rhetorical than personal. FYI, I know that you don’t need to know this information as much as I need to confess it.



Shalom,



Michael Anda


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
enough "Michael, are you going to present your new protocol, or are you just going to continue this nonsense? What is your intention at this point in time? As far as I can surmise, you are far more concerned with your own state of mind and emtional well-being than you are with the Challenge. You're coming very, very close to a point at which I'm just not going to respond to ANYTHING except your protocol. I respond here as a courtesy to you, but I will NOT continue to offer such courtesies forever. Indeed, this has gone on long enough. I'm not in any way required to engage you in this kind of nonsense, so I won't. All I need to hear from you at this point is that you have a protocol ready for us to consider. Enough interpersonal meanderings. I am NOT interested. For the last time, sir: Present your Protocol,
or state your intention to do so within the next few days as you'd previously stated, or your claim will be rejected.
Now you have a very clear choice before you:
Either direct your full attention to the claim and the claim ONLY NOW and from this point forward, or it's goodbye.
I will NOT respond to any more inquiries that do not reside squarely within this specific area. I hope that's clear now.
-Kramer, JREF
=======================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: you



Kramer,

You just posted a response at JREF Forum quoting me directly

“If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.”

One of the frustrations I have experienced with our project is you having missed the use of qualifiers within my communications.

Are you suggesting that you believe that we had reached a protocol agreement without any additional negotiation required?

Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: enough "It is clear. It is also clear that you are accustomed to this type of warring environment and that I am not. My conscience is clear now, I see what I am up against, and I am ready to proceed. Would you prefer that I drop my self-testing preparations and re-direct my efforts into designing a protocol, or would you prefer that I do the self-testing this weekend and pickup the protocol design matter Monday as I’ve told you I would do? My intent would then be to present to you a protocol for consideration Wednesday. Since I am not required to do the self-test perhaps you’d like me to skip over this suggested step. I defer to your better judgment in this matter.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Michael
Subject: enough



Michael, are you going to present your new protocol, or are you just going to continue this nonsense? What is your intention at this point in time? As far as I can surmise, you are far more concerned with your own state of mind and emtional well-being than you are with the Challenge. You're coming very, very close to a point at which I'm just not going to respond to ANYTHING except your protocol. I respond here as a courtesy to you, but I will NOT continue to offer such courtesies forever. Indeed, this has gone on long enough. I'm not in any way required to engage you in this kind of nonsense, so I won't. All I need to hear from you at this point is that you have a protocol ready for us to consider. Enough interpersonal meanderings. I am NOT interested. For the last time, sir: Present your Protocol,

or state your intention to do so within the next few days as you'd previously stated, or your claim will be rejected.

Now you have a very clear choice before you:

Either direct your full attention to the claim and the claim ONLY NOW and from this point forward, or it's goodbye.

I will NOT respond to any more inquiries that do not reside squarely within this specific area. I hope that's clear now.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: you



Kramer,

You just posted a response at JREF Forum quoting me directly

“If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.”

One of the frustrations I have experienced with our project is you having missed the use of qualifiers within my communications.

Are you suggesting that you believe that we had reached a protocol agreement without any additional negotiation required?

Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: enough "The Challenge rules anmd FAQ specifically state that (if you are prudent) you should conduct your own secure test prior to submitting your claim your preliminary testing. NO, you are not required to do so, but we strongly suggest it.
It's right there in the Challenge Rules and FAQ.
-Kramer, JREF
==================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:51 PM
Subject: RE: enough


It is clear. It is also clear that you are accustomed to this type of warring environment and that I am not. My conscience is clear now, I see what I am up against, and I am ready to proceed. Would you prefer that I drop my self-testing preparations and re-direct my efforts into designing a protocol, or would you prefer that I do the self-testing this weekend and pickup the protocol design matter Monday as I’ve told you I would do? My intent would then be to present to you a protocol for consideration Wednesday. Since I am not required to do the self-test perhaps you’d like me to skip over this suggested step. I defer to your better judgment in this matter.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Michael
Subject: enough



Michael, are you going to present your new protocol, or are you just going to continue this nonsense? What is your intention at this point in time? As far as I can surmise, you are far more concerned with your own state of mind and emtional well-being than you are with the Challenge. You're coming very, very close to a point at which I'm just not going to respond to ANYTHING except your protocol. I respond here as a courtesy to you, but I will NOT continue to offer such courtesies forever. Indeed, this has gone on long enough. I'm not in any way required to engage you in this kind of nonsense, so I won't. All I need to hear from you at this point is that you have a protocol ready for us to consider. Enough interpersonal meanderings. I am NOT interested. For the last time, sir: Present your Protocol,

or state your intention to do so within the next few days as you'd previously stated, or your claim will be rejected.
Now you have a very clear choice before you:

Either direct your full attention to the claim and the claim ONLY NOW and from this point forward, or it's goodbye.

I will NOT respond to any more inquiries that do not reside squarely within this specific area. I hope that's clear now.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: you



Kramer,
You just posted a response at JREF Forum quoting me directly

“If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.”

One of the frustrations I have experienced with our project is you having missed the use of qualifiers within my communications.

Are you suggesting that you believe that we had reached a protocol agreement without any additional negotiation required?

Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: enough "Thank you for your response, I will then test myself this weekend and design the protocol this coming Monday through Wednesday as I had planned.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:10 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: enough



The Challenge rules anmd FAQ specifically state that (if you are prudent) you should conduct your own secure test prior to submitting your claim your preliminary testing. NO, you are not required to do so, but we strongly suggest it.

It's right there in the Challenge Rules and FAQ.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:51 PM

Subject: RE: enough



It is clear. It is also clear that you are accustomed to this type of warring environment and that I am not. My conscience is clear now, I see what I am up against, and I am ready to proceed. Would you prefer that I drop my self-testing preparations and re-direct my efforts into designing a protocol, or would you prefer that I do the self-testing this weekend and pickup the protocol design matter Monday as I’ve told you I would do? My intent would then be to present to you a protocol for consideration Wednesday. Since I am not required to do the self-test perhaps you’d like me to skip over this suggested step. I defer to your better judgment in this matter.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 2:29 PM
To: Michael
Subject: enough



Michael, are you going to present your new protocol, or are you just going to continue this nonsense? What is your intention at this point in time? As far as I can surmise, you are far more concerned with your own state of mind and emtional well-being than you are with the Challenge. You're coming very, very close to a point at which I'm just not going to respond to ANYTHING except your protocol. I respond here as a courtesy to you, but I will NOT continue to offer such courtesies forever. Indeed, this has gone on long enough. I'm not in any way required to engage you in this kind of nonsense, so I won't. All I need to hear from you at this point is that you have a protocol ready for us to consider. Enough interpersonal meanderings. I am NOT interested. For the last time, sir: Present your Protocol,

or state your intention to do so within the next few days as you'd previously stated, or your claim will be rejected.

Now you have a very clear choice before you:

Either direct your full attention to the claim and the claim ONLY NOW and from this point forward, or it's goodbye.

I will NOT respond to any more inquiries that do not reside squarely within this specific area. I hope that's clear now.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: you



Kramer,

You just posted a response at JREF Forum quoting me directly

“If Kramer stands by these statements I can ONLY conclude the JREF Challenge is a farce.”

One of the frustrations I have experienced with our project is you having missed the use of qualifiers within my communications.

Are you suggesting that you believe that we had reached a protocol agreement without any additional negotiation required?

Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.4 - Release Date: 4/6/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
test dates "Assuming a protocol can be established by days end April 20, would you be amenable to preliminary testing taking place on or after June 6, and assuming I pass, final testing ocurring on or after July 25? The way I see it, this meets your desire for a relatively quick test taking place, if I fail the preliminary testing the matter ends quickly, and if I pass, you have no reason to question my good faith.



All of this, of course, rests on establishing a protocol, and like you, I do not feel there should be anything terribly difficult to overcome. I personally don’t see where I have been anything less than agreeabable to changing protocol elements that are deemed unacceptable. It seems our biggest disagreement always has been in the area of timing once my first protocol effer was rejected. I think I’ve come up with some good ideas for protocol elements. There will be no safe-depost boxes in my next proposal let me tell you. I you feel willing to offer any of your protocol thoughts I would seriously entertain incorporating them into the final design.



I can see where you would perhaps view my high school reunion concerns as a “vanity”, but let me assure you that I have deeply personal reasons for this consideration. I would appreciate your sensitivity on this one subject. I consider this aspect of my correspondence to be personal and highly confidential.





Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org) kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: test dates "Submit your protocol, Mr. Anda. You will not force me into pointless discussions.
The issue of a test date is wholly irrelevant until a protocol has been determined.
First things first. There is absolutely NOTHING to discuss until a protocol is agreed to.
-Kramer, JREF
=============================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: test dates


Assuming a protocol can be established by days end April 20, would you be amenable to preliminary testing taking place on or after June 6, and assuming I pass, final testing ocurring on or after July 25? The way I see it, this meets your desire for a relatively quick test taking place, if I fail the preliminary testing the matter ends quickly, and if I pass, you have no reason to question my good faith.



All of this, of course, rests on establishing a protocol, and like you, I do not feel there should be anything terribly difficult to overcome. I personally don’t see where I have been anything less than agreeabable to changing protocol elements that are deemed unacceptable. It seems our biggest disagreement always has been in the area of timing once my first protocol effer was rejected. I think I’ve come up with some good ideas for protocol elements. There will be no safe-depost boxes in my next proposal let me tell you. I you feel willing to offer any of your protocol thoughts I would seriously entertain incorporating them into the final design.



I can see where you would perhaps view my high school reunion concerns as a “vanity”, but let me assure you that I have deeply personal reasons for this consideration. I would appreciate your sensitivity on this one subject. I consider this aspect of my correspondence to be personal and highly confidential.





Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: test dates "p.s. NONE of our correspondence will be considered ""highly confidential"".

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: test dates


Assuming a protocol can be established by days end April 20, would you be amenable to preliminary testing taking place on or after June 6, and assuming I pass, final testing ocurring on or after July 25? The way I see it, this meets your desire for a relatively quick test taking place, if I fail the preliminary testing the matter ends quickly, and if I pass, you have no reason to question my good faith.



All of this, of course, rests on establishing a protocol, and like you, I do not feel there should be anything terribly difficult to overcome. I personally don’t see where I have been anything less than agreeabable to changing protocol elements that are deemed unacceptable. It seems our biggest disagreement always has been in the area of timing once my first protocol effer was rejected. I think I’ve come up with some good ideas for protocol elements. There will be no safe-depost boxes in my next proposal let me tell you. I you feel willing to offer any of your protocol thoughts I would seriously entertain incorporating them into the final design.



I can see where you would perhaps view my high school reunion concerns as a “vanity”, but let me assure you that I have deeply personal reasons for this consideration. I would appreciate your sensitivity on this one subject. I consider this aspect of my correspondence to be personal and highly confidential.





Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: test dates "Thank you for the clarification.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: test dates



p.s. NONE of our correspondence will be considered ""highly confidential"".

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: KRAMER

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:05 PM

Subject: test dates



Assuming a protocol can be established by days end April 20, would you be amenable to preliminary testing taking place on or after June 6, and assuming I pass, final testing ocurring on or after July 25? The way I see it, this meets your desire for a relatively quick test taking place, if I fail the preliminary testing the matter ends quickly, and if I pass, you have no reason to question my good faith.



All of this, of course, rests on establishing a protocol, and like you, I do not feel there should be anything terribly difficult to overcome. I personally don’t see where I have been anything less than agreeabable to changing protocol elements that are deemed unacceptable. It seems our biggest disagreement always has been in the area of timing once my first protocol effer was rejected. I think I’ve come up with some good ideas for protocol elements. There will be no safe-depost boxes in my next proposal let me tell you. I you feel willing to offer any of your protocol thoughts I would seriously entertain incorporating them into the final design.



I can see where you would perhaps view my high school reunion concerns as a “vanity”, but let me assure you that I have deeply personal reasons for this consideration. I would appreciate your sensitivity on this one subject. I consider this aspect of my correspondence to be personal and highly confidential.





Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: test dates "p.p.s. The ONLY thing I'll respond to from this point forward is a protocol proposal. Period.
" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
protocol proposal "Attached is my protocol proposal drafted almost exclusively by JREF Forum participant Gr8wight and reviewed by a couple of other Forum participants. He has approved the minor ammendments that I have added.



Michael Anda



" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org) kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: protocol proposal "We don't open attachments. Too many viruses. Please ""Cut & Paste"" and include it within the text body of your next email.

-Kramer, JREF
==================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:03 PM
Subject: protocol proposal


Attached is my protocol proposal drafted almost exclusively by JREF Forum participant Gr8wight and reviewed by a couple of other Forum participants. He has approved the minor ammendments that I have added.



Michael Anda




_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "Michael,

Well, we have plenty of new problems here.

Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.
Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.

Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.
If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.

Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.
The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.

You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""

Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.

You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.

You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.

Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.

-Kramer, JREF
===========================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: JREF Protocol
protocol proposal
_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.

Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?

Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.

Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.

Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.

Point 5 - Whatever.

Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.

Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.

-Kramer, JREF



----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.


Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
p.s. "p.s. There is NO WAY that we will allow you to either touch or view any of the discs. We won't debate this.
" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.



>>Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?



It is a basic element in the protocol, and Steven Howard’s for that matter, this is the dummy chip. The premise is that I will have to distinguish whether a disc has received GSIC treatment, or not.



>>Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.



Expedience is the best explanation I can give. I hadn’t considered that there could be ANYTHING objectionable about such a request. Gr8wight and I didn’t even discuss the matter as far as I can recall.



>>Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.



I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?



>>Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.



I have no particulars in mind. I just want to avoid having to remove ANYTHING from my system as established.



>>Point 5 - Whatever.



Does this mean you are agreeable on this point.



>>Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.



I thought it best to have the language originate with someone other than me. I was probably more cognizant of other issues trying to get the protocol submitted by days end Wednesday.




Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.



-Kramer, JREF





----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: p.s. "Not a deal breaker either. While I accept this as a requirement on your part, what is it about this that concerns you? You seem to have this position that I should answer all of your questions yet I see no desire to reciprocate. I am not trying to be bombastic, but what is this all about? I don’t see where your assumption is covered in the Challenge rules.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Michael
Subject: p.s.



p.s. There is NO WAY that we will allow you to either touch or view any of the discs. We won't debate this.

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP [Gr8wight];'Steve Eddy' [Gr8wight];steve@q-audio.com SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "Point 1 - OK.
Point 2 - If it's just a matter of expedience, let us worry about that. We really don't want you touching anything.
Point 3 - I'm glad you agree that the test would be more valid without this requirement.
Point 4 - You have ""no particulars in mind"" right now, but this leaves open the possibility that some ""particulars"" will come to mind during or just prior to testing, and that is one of the potential variables that we must insure against.
Point 5 - I have to check with Randi on this to be sure, but personally I don't see a problem.
Point 6 - OK then.

p.s. I'm VERY sorry about posting your phone number. I meant to put ****** in there, but neglected to do so.
It was removed within 5 minutes of my having been alerted to it. I'm hoping you don't feel I did this on purpose.

Maybe we're getting somewhere now. I hope so.

-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol






-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.



>>Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?



It is a basic element in the protocol, and Steven Howard’s for that matter, this is the dummy chip. The premise is that I will have to distinguish whether a disc has received GSIC treatment, or not.



>>Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.



Expedience is the best explanation I can give. I hadn’t considered that there could be ANYTHING objectionable about such a request. Gr8wight and I didn’t even discuss the matter as far as I can recall.



>>Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.



I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?



>>Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.



I have no particulars in mind. I just want to avoid having to remove ANYTHING from my system as established.



>>Point 5 - Whatever.



Does this mean you are agreeable on this point.



>>Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.



I thought it best to have the language originate with someone other than me. I was probably more cognizant of other issues trying to get the protocol submitted by days end Wednesday.



Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.



-Kramer, JREF





----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: p.s. "OK then, don't answer us. It just increases our suspicions, and if that's the way you want things to be, so be it. We're used to it.[- Kramer, JREF
==================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: [Gr8wight] ; 'Steve Eddy'
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: RE: p.s.

Not a deal breaker either. While I accept this as a requirement on your part, what is it about this that concerns you? You seem to have this position that I should answer all of your questions yet I see no desire to reciprocate. I am not trying to be bombastic, but what is this all about? I don’t see where your assumption is covered in the Challenge rules.

Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Michael
Subject: p.s.



p.s. There is NO WAY that we will allow you to either touch or view any of the discs. We won't debate this.



" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "Thanks Kramer,



Gr8wight became aware of a problem within our protocol regarding its integrity which he has alerted you to. We have a little more work to do to correct this. Presumably this can be dealt with simply by T2 becoming an independent observer. I don’t know what is standard practice, but I would like to have my own observer note the GSIC state of each trial. I don’t mean to attribute dishonesty to anyone, this request would simply make for one less concern. I am trying to eliminate any cause for concern so that my mind stays fully on the task at hand.



1) Good



2) I really don’t see the need for me to touch the discs. Since it appears that I’m not going to get around having an observer present in the room with me and my need for swapping discs would be limited to an unlikely scenario anyway this shouldn’t be an issue.



3) I realize that I am not going to find the perfect environment, I would appreciate any input from you that can help reduce distractions.



4) I have a highly tweaked system with loads of accessory products, I can’t imagine where any of these would be objectionable, but I simply covering my bases with this request.



5) Gr8wight said that it would be OK for T1 to simply turn his back during this stage.



6) Good





As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.




Sincerely,



Michael Anda











-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 10:13 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Point 1 - OK.

Point 2 - If it's just a matter of expedience, let us worry about that. We really don't want you touching anything.

Point 3 - I'm glad you agree that the test would be more valid without this requirement.

Point 4 - You have ""no particulars in mind"" right now, but this leaves open the possibility that some ""particulars"" will come to mind during or just prior to testing, and that is one of the potential variables that we must insure against.

Point 5 - I have to check with Randi on this to be sure, but personally I don't see a problem.

Point 6 - OK then.



p.s. I'm VERY sorry about posting your phone number. I meant to put ****** in there, but neglected to do so.

It was removed within 5 minutes of my having been alerted to it. I'm hoping you don't feel I did this on purpose.



Maybe we're getting somewhere now. I hope so.



-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:19 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol






-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.



>>Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?



It is a basic element in the protocol, and Steven Howard’s for that matter, this is the dummy chip. The premise is that I will have to distinguish whether a disc has received GSIC treatment, or not.



>>Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.



Expedience is the best explanation I can give. I hadn’t considered that there could be ANYTHING objectionable about such a request. Gr8wight and I didn’t even discuss the matter as far as I can recall.



>>Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.



I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?



>>Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.



I have no particulars in mind. I just want to avoid having to remove ANYTHING from my system as established.



>>Point 5 - Whatever.


Does this mean you are agreeable on this point.



>>Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.



I thought it best to have the language originate with someone other than me. I was probably more cognizant of other issues trying to get the protocol submitted by days end Wednesday.



Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.



-Kramer, JREF





----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
RE: p.s. "I just read this after sending my reply. Communications outside of real time have hurt our cause in the past. I think we can overcome these difficulties.



Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 10:23 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: p.s.



OK then, don't answer us. It just increases our suspicions, and if that's the way you want things to be, so be it. We're used to it.[- Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: [Gr8wight] ; 'Steve Eddy'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:29 PM

Subject: RE: p.s.

Not a deal breaker either. While I accept this as a requirement on your part, what is it about this that concerns you? You seem to have this position that I should answer all of your questions yet I see no desire to reciprocate. I am not trying to be bombastic, but what is this all about? I don’t see where your assumption is covered in the Challenge rules.

Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:53 PM
To: Michael
Subject: p.s.



p.s. There is NO WAY that we will allow you to either touch or view any of the discs. We won't debate this.

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "So if you are unable to keep your focus and fix your mind ""fully on the task at hand"", it'll be because of the protocol, or because of the JREF, or because of the observers, or because of what else? I can only imagine. Sounds like you're ready to offer any number of excuses as to why you failed, if you do. So many that I'm forced to wonder; are you EXPECTING to fail? It sure seems so, if these ""concerns"" are iny indication.

Having your own observer is fine. Have two.

1 - Good.
2 - Good.
3 - ""Distractions"" is a relative term. It can mean anything. You'll agree to the test, and agree that no distractions are inherent in the protocol. If something arises upon testing, which we're going to assume it will, we'll do everything within our power to fix it, but we won't change the protocol.
4 - If it's highly ""tweaked"" already, what's the problem? We never said you couldn't use any of the devices already in your system. We're just saying that the listening test shouldn't require you to tweak further. Set it up however you like prior to testing, but during the test, it's listening and listening ONLY. That's your claim. And just out of curiosity, which ""bases"" do you refer to here as being covered?
5 - Good.
6 - Also good.

Now, on to the ""desires"" you see as essential.

1 - It's your home. Is it not peaceful and free of ""unneccesary distraction and noise already""? I don't understand why you would tell US this. Do you think we're going to have an American Bandstand party in the next room while you're being tested? Trust that we won't. We guarantee you absolute silence during testing. Do you have a barking dog you're worried about? If so, give him to a neighbor or take him to the pound for the day. Do you live under the interstate thruway, or beside a truck stop? If so, I suggest you offer an alternative location. Crying babies? Nagging spouse? Chattering parrots? These are all your own responsibility, as is anything else already within the environment that you insisted long ago was where you wished to be tested. Rest assured that you will be asked PRIOR to testing if everything is OK with you, if the test was mutually agreed to, and if it is fair - so, if afterward you offer some escuse as to why the environment wasn't conducive to testing, well, we'll all be finding such a statement to be pretty darn disengenuous. And as regards your request for us to help YOU to create ""the perfect environment"", well, again, its your house, and if it's not ""perfect"" (what's ""perfect"" mean, anyway), it's certainly not JREF's fault.

2 - When you say, ""...and 10 minutes to identify the state after treatment""...does this mean that after you listen to the disc you're going to demand another 10 minutes to sit there and decide? We thought your claim stated that the difference is apparent. No matter. Have your 10 minutes to sit and think.

3 - Whatever. You won't be touching it or looking at the chip OR the disc, anyway.

4- Fine.

Good Luck. Please submit a finalized protocol for Randi's approval, and please don't be surprised if he comes up with something I didn't notice. He's the expert.

-Kramer, JREF
=====================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


Thanks Kramer,



Gr8wight became aware of a problem within our protocol regarding its integrity which he has alerted you to. We have a little more work to do to correct this. Presumably this can be dealt with simply by T2 becoming an independent observer. I don’t know what is standard practice, but I would like to have my own observer note the GSIC state of each trial. I don’t mean to attribute dishonesty to anyone, this request would simply make for one less concern. I am trying to eliminate any cause for concern so that my mind stays fully on the task at hand.



1) Good



2) I really don’t see the need for me to touch the discs. Since it appears that I’m not going to get around having an observer present in the room with me and my need for swapping discs would be limited to an unlikely scenario anyway this shouldn’t be an issue.



3) I realize that I am not going to find the perfect environment, I would appreciate any input from you that can help reduce distractions.



4) I have a highly tweaked system with loads of accessory products, I can’t imagine where any of these would be objectionable, but I simply covering my bases with this request.


5) Gr8wight said that it would be OK for T1 to simply turn his back during this stage.



6) Good





As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.





Sincerely,



Michael Anda











-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 10:13 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Point 1 - OK.

Point 2 - If it's just a matter of expedience, let us worry about that. We really don't want you touching anything.

Point 3 - I'm glad you agree that the test would be more valid without this requirement.

Point 4 - You have ""no particulars in mind"" right now, but this leaves open the possibility that some ""particulars"" will come to mind during or just prior to testing, and that is one of the potential variables that we must insure against.

Point 5 - I have to check with Randi on this to be sure, but personally I don't see a problem.

Point 6 - OK then.



p.s. I'm VERY sorry about posting your phone number. I meant to put ****** in there, but neglected to do so.

It was removed within 5 minutes of my having been alerted to it. I'm hoping you don't feel I did this on purpose.



Maybe we're getting somewhere now. I hope so.



-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:19 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.



>>Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?



It is a basic element in the protocol, and Steven Howard’s for that matter, this is the dummy chip. The premise is that I will have to distinguish whether a disc has received GSIC treatment, or not.



>>Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.



Expedience is the best explanation I can give. I hadn’t considered that there could be ANYTHING objectionable about such a request. Gr8wight and I didn’t even discuss the matter as far as I can recall.



>>Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.



I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?



>>Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.



I have no particulars in mind. I just want to avoid having to remove ANYTHING from my system as established.



>>Point 5 - Whatever.



Does this mean you are agreeable on this point.



>>Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.



I thought it best to have the language originate with someone other than me. I was probably more cognizant of other issues trying to get the protocol submitted by days end Wednesday.



Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.



-Kramer, JREF





----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.



Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.
Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "Regarding distractions I simply referring to the JREF induced variety. I, of course, will have to deal with distractions inherit to my own environment. I will be sending my family and dog away on test days. I am not looking for excuses, I am trying to eliminate them.



I do think it takes a certain amount of sensitivity to hear the GSIC effect. The only concern I haven’t found a way around is having an observer present in my listening room. I wish I could say this isn’t a concern, but it is.



Tweaking my system is what I do for a hobby, this is an ongoing process, really my only concern with this is that I not be asked to remove anything. I will not need to touch anything during the test other than two remote controls.


The test I desire is to listen to a disc untreated for 20 minutes, then apply the GSIC (Active or Spent) then have 10 minutes after the “treatment” to make my determination.



I would like either myself or my observer to see each subject disc prior to playing to see if there are any visible flaws. Not a likely scenario, but I will have a few extra sealed discs on hand to deal with any anomaly.



I apologize if I haven’t covered all the subject matter in your email. I have to get to some other tasks right now.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:26 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



So if you are unable to keep your focus and fix your mind ""fully on the task at hand"", it'll be because of the protocol, or because of the JREF, or because of the observers, or because of what else? I can only imagine. Sounds like you're ready to offer any number of excuses as to why you failed, if you do. So many that I'm forced to wonder; are you EXPECTING to fail? It sure seems so, if these ""concerns"" are iny indication.



Having your own observer is fine. Have two.



1 - Good.

2 - Good.

3 - ""Distractions"" is a relative term. It can mean anything. You'll agree to the test, and agree that no distractions are inherent in the protocol. If something arises upon testing, which we're going to assume it will, we'll do everything within our power to fix it, but we won't change the protocol.

4 - If it's highly ""tweaked"" already, what's the problem? We never said you couldn't use any of the devices already in your system. We're just saying that the listening test shouldn't require you to tweak further. Set it up however you like prior to testing, but during the test, it's listening and listening ONLY. That's your claim. And just out of curiosity, which ""bases"" do you refer to here as being covered?

5 - Good.

6 - Also good.



Now, on to the ""desires"" you see as essential.



1 - It's your home. Is it not peaceful and free of ""unneccesary distraction and noise already""? I don't understand why you would tell US this. Do you think we're going to have an American Bandstand party in the next room while you're being tested? Trust that we won't. We guarantee you absolute silence during testing. Do you have a barking dog you're worried about? If so, give him to a neighbor or take him to the pound for the day. Do you live under the interstate thruway, or beside a truck stop? If so, I suggest you offer an alternative location. Crying babies? Nagging spouse? Chattering parrots? These are all your own responsibility, as is anything else already within the environment that you insisted long ago was where you wished to be tested. Rest assured that you will be asked PRIOR to testing if everything is OK with you, if the test was mutually agreed to, and if it is fair - so, if afterward you offer some escuse as to why the environment wasn't conducive to testing, well, we'll all be finding such a statement to be pretty darn disengenuous. And as regards your request for us to help YOU to create ""the perfect environment"", well, again, its your house, and if it's not ""perfect"" (what's ""perfect"" mean, anyway), it's certainly not JREF's fault.



2 - When you say, ""...and 10 minutes to identify the state after treatment""...does this mean that after you listen to the disc you're going to demand another 10 minutes to sit there and decide? We thought your claim stated that the difference is apparent. No matter. Have your 10 minutes to sit and think.



3 - Whatever. You won't be touching it or looking at the chip OR the disc, anyway.



4- Fine.



Good Luck. Please submit a finalized protocol for Randi's approval, and please don't be surprised if he comes up with something I didn't notice. He's the expert.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:01 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Thanks Kramer,



Gr8wight became aware of a problem within our protocol regarding its integrity which he has alerted you to. We have a little more work to do to correct this. Presumably this can be dealt with simply by T2 becoming an independent observer. I don’t know what is standard practice, but I would like to have my own observer note the GSIC state of each trial. I don’t mean to attribute dishonesty to anyone, this request would simply make for one less concern. I am trying to eliminate any cause for concern so that my mind stays fully on the task at hand.



1) Good



2) I really don’t see the need for me to touch the discs. Since it appears that I’m not going to get around having an observer present in the room with me and my need for swapping discs would be limited to an unlikely scenario anyway this shouldn’t be an issue.



3) I realize that I am not going to find the perfect environment, I would appreciate any input from you that can help reduce distractions.



4) I have a highly tweaked system with loads of accessory products, I can’t imagine where any of these would be objectionable, but I simply covering my bases with this request.



5) Gr8wight said that it would be OK for T1 to simply turn his back during this stage.



6) Good





As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.





Sincerely,



Michael Anda











-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 10:13 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Point 1 - OK.
Point 2 - If it's just a matter of expedience, let us worry about that. We really don't want you touching anything.

Point 3 - I'm glad you agree that the test would be more valid without this requirement.

Point 4 - You have ""no particulars in mind"" right now, but this leaves open the possibility that some ""particulars"" will come to mind during or just prior to testing, and that is one of the potential variables that we must insure against.

Point 5 - I have to check with Randi on this to be sure, but personally I don't see a problem.

Point 6 - OK then.



p.s. I'm VERY sorry about posting your phone number. I meant to put ****** in there, but neglected to do so.

It was removed within 5 minutes of my having been alerted to it. I'm hoping you don't feel I did this on purpose.



Maybe we're getting somewhere now. I hope so.



-Kramer, JREF

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:19 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:48 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



You may forward anything I write to anyone you like but I will ONLY correspond with YOU on this matter, as YOU are the applicant.



>>Point 1 - I still do not understand your need for a spent chip. Your explanation makes little sense. What has a ""spent chip"" got to do with ANYTHING?



It is a basic element in the protocol, and Steven Howard’s for that matter, this is the dummy chip. The premise is that I will have to distinguish whether a disc has received GSIC treatment, or not.



>>Point 2 - Nice try, but WE are asking YOU why you NEED to handle them. Try again.



Expedience is the best explanation I can give. I hadn’t considered that there could be ANYTHING objectionable about such a request. Gr8wight and I didn’t even discuss the matter as far as I can recall.



>>Point 3 - There will ALWAYS be someone in the room with you. The test will be videotaped. If you cannot overcome such ""distractions"", withdraw your application immediately.



I was truly hoping to avoid this sort of thing, but I don’t consider it to be a “deal breaker”. We’d have a more valid test without this requirement IME. Let me know what you require. Is it possible to simply have a remote camera(s) in my space?



>>Point 4 - Are we testing your GSIC chip, or are we testing your ""voodoo products""? WHAT products are you talking about, and WHY do you NEED to have them available to you? Again you skirt the questions.



I have no particulars in mind. I just want to avoid having to remove ANYTHING from my system as established.



>>Point 5 - Whatever.



Does this mean you are agreeable on this point.



>>Point 6 - Then why wasn't that made clear? You refer to the item in question as }One identical Disc"" in one area, and then as a ""reference disc"" in another. It's best to keep your terms consistent unless you want to waste another few months on nomenclature issues.



I thought it best to have the language originate with someone other than me. I was probably more cognizant of other issues trying to get the protocol submitted by days end Wednesday.



Now PLEASE answer the questions that remain unanswered.



-Kramer, JREF





----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:40 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Gr8wight developed most of this protocol based in part on the Steven Howard design along with suggestions and requirements I relayed to him. May I send this, and all future communications, on the protocol matter to him, I would also like to forward our correspondences to Steve Eddy for his take on things. I deferred to his (Gr8wight) judgment in many matters when they didn’t prove to be problematic for me. Some of your concerns with this protocol would need to be answered by him, some by myself. Gr8wight expressed a disclaimer that he is not a scientist, but viewed the protocol design as an excerise in critical thinking. He has been most helpful.



My intent with this, or any other, protocol is to establish as natural listening environment as I possibly can under test conditions. I’ve told Gr8wight that I would like to “feel” like nobody else is present in my home besides myself.



Here is my take on some of the concerns you note.



Point 1: If agreeable, I will set a chip, that is already spent, atop my player from now until the time of the testing to ensure that there are no applications left. I will sign a waiver to this effect if that helps at all. Perhaps another option is to simply open a chip and drilled out the active material. I don’t know how to get around this concern with any methodology other than those noted, if you have any suggestions I am open to considering them. I do not want to enclose the device as Steven Howard called for in his design.


Point 2: Gr8wight put this provision in and I am not sure about the significance he placed on the language. I think in practical terms there is no reason why I shouldn’t handle the discs, what advantage could I gain in handling them?



Point 3: I am hoping that I will be able to operate in an environment free of ANY outside distraction, most notably my desire is to not have anyone else in the listening room with me.



Point 4: The Steven Howard proposal, which the current protocol takes its essence from, was designed so that I could use any audio “voodoo” products I desire, as Steven Howard” calls them, and still not mess with the integrity of the test.



Point 5: This was Gr8wight’s idea and pertains only to T1 leaving the test setup room while T2 does his primary function.



Point 6: The reference disc you refer to is on the Materials required list; it is identified as “One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)”



Also, I have a new phone number for your records. It is [privacy edit]-********. After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.





Michael















-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael,



Well, we have plenty of new problems here.



Your new protocol, involving a new GSIC and a ""spent"" one, clearly affords you a new escape portal in which you can claim that the ""spent"" chip wasn't really spent, and that if you can't discern the difference between the two, you won't admit that the chip doesn't work - you'll just insist that the ""spent"" chip had some more life left to it than the company selling it had stated it would. We must agree to a test that does NOT allow the applicant such escapes.

Please explain clearly and succinctly WHY you need not just a new chip, but also a ""spent"" chip.



Be advised that you will NEVER be allowed to touch ANY of the discs, EVER. It cannot be allowed.

If the test is all about LISTENING, please explain WHY you feel that you should be permitted to handle the discs.



Also please be advised that you are mistaken if you think that only ONE observer will be present.

The test will also be videotaped, so at LEAST two JREF volunteers will need to be present.



You say...""Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.""



Please explain clearly and succinctly exactly what you mean by this statement. It should be understood that at no point in time will you be allowed to touch anything in your system EXCEPT the switch that allows you to alternate between one disc and the other.



You also state that ""a small private area...is necessary"". Why? For what purpose? What will you have the option to do in this ""small private area"" that you will not allow observers to see? Please explain WHY you require this when all the test would require is for you to turn your back.



You also refer to a REFERENCE disc that is NOT in your list of materials needed. If this is used simply to confirm (in your mind) that the new GSIC is ""working"", we have no problem with that.



Please respond to all of the above questions asap so that we can proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: JREF Protocol

protocol proposal


_____


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs

One identical CD to be used as a control (applicant already owns)

One CD of any title to test status of active GSIC prior to testing

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC
permanent felt tip marker for labeling



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Associate of applicant (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Additionally, a small private area separate from both the listening room and the selecting room is necessary. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labeled A and I on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labeled 1 and 2. Applicant will label one new CD as ‘reference’ and retire to listening room with reference CD and the control CD to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to acclimate. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labeled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference CD in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes, alternating between control CD and reference CD as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.



Conclusion:



Applicant and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant will be the only party allowed to handle compact discs.

Applicant will not be permitted to handle GSIC devices.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.



No electronic devices can be operated by T1 or T2 at any time.

T1 and T2 will remain silent during listening sessions so as not to distract applicant.

Applicant will be allowed the use of all audio related accessories within system.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before proceeding.

Applicant and JREF agree that should the test be successful, the formal test will take place at the same location as the preliminary test.


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 4/14/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.13 - Release Date: 4/16/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "So you can't demonstrate the validity of your claim if someone else in in the room? Then I'd say that according to the Challenge rules you'll be unable to demonstrate your claim. Demonstrations take place before a team of observers.
There's no way around this. It is our sincerest wish that you will be able to overcome this anxiety and be tested.

You won't be asked to remove anything in your system. You just won't be allowed to ""tweak"" during the test.

Why would a ""visible flaw"" in the disc have any impact on the digital storage therein? This is not a test for inconsistencies in a vinyl LP record - the data is stored digitally in ones and zeros.

I have thousands of cd's and many of them have visible flaws, but they all play just fine, time after time. If a disc skips or is in some way determined to be flawed during the test, you will be permitted to discard it and open a new disc. If you still insist on this ""inspection"" of the disc for visible flaws that are on just about every disc I've ever seen, the JREF observer and your observer may do so together. Any disc they both agree is ""flawed"" will be discarded. Any disc they DISagree on will be discarded. You must trust your observer to accomplish this requirement on your behalf. This is a listening test, not an exercise in cd quality control.

-Kramer, JREF
==================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


Regarding distractions I simply referring to the JREF induced variety. I, of course, will have to deal with distractions inherit to my own environment. I will be sending my family and dog away on test days. I am not looking for excuses, I am trying to eliminate them.

I do think it takes a certain amount of sensitivity to hear the GSIC effect. The only concern I haven’t found a way around is having an observer present in my listening room. I wish I could say this isn’t a concern, but it is.

Tweaking my system is what I do for a hobby, this is an ongoing process, really my only concern with this is that I not be asked to remove anything. I will not need to touch anything during the test other than two remote controls.

The test I desire is to listen to a disc untreated for 20 minutes, then apply the GSIC (Active or Spent) then have 10 minutes after the “treatment” to make my determination.

I would like either myself or my observer to see each subject disc prior to playing to see if there are any visible flaws. Not a likely scenario, but I will have a few extra sealed discs on hand to deal with any anomaly.

I apologize if I haven’t covered all the subject matter in your email. I have to get to some other tasks right now.

Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "Thanks Kramer,



Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.



I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.



Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?



I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.



Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part.


Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 12:09 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



So you can't demonstrate the validity of your claim if someone else in in the room? Then I'd say that according to the Challenge rules you'll be unable to demonstrate your claim. Demonstrations take place before a team of observers.

There's no way around this. It is our sincerest wish that you will be able to overcome this anxiety and be tested.



You won't be asked to remove anything in your system. You just won't be allowed to ""tweak"" during the test.



Why would a ""visible flaw"" in the disc have any impact on the digital storage therein? This is not a test for inconsistencies in a vinyl LP record - the data is stored digitally in ones and zeros.



I have thousands of cd's and many of them have visible flaws, but they all play just fine, time after time. If a disc skips or is in some way determined to be flawed during the test, you will be permitted to discard it and open a new disc. If you still insist on this ""inspection"" of the disc for visible flaws that are on just about every disc I've ever seen, the JREF observer and your observer may do so together. Any disc they both agree is ""flawed"" will be discarded. Any disc they DISagree on will be discarded. You must trust your observer to accomplish this requirement on your behalf. This is a listening test, not an exercise in cd quality control.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:59 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Regarding distractions I simply referring to the JREF induced variety. I, of course, will have to deal with distractions inherit to my own environment. I will be sending my family and dog away on test days. I am not looking for excuses, I am trying to eliminate them.

I do think it takes a certain amount of sensitivity to hear the GSIC effect. The only concern I haven’t found a way around is having an observer present in my listening room. I wish I could say this isn’t a concern, but it is.

Tweaking my system is what I do for a hobby, this is an ongoing process, really my only concern with this is that I not be asked to remove anything. I will not need to touch anything during the test other than two remote controls.

The test I desire is to listen to a disc untreated for 20 minutes, then apply the GSIC (Active or Spent) then have 10 minutes after the “treatment” to make my determination.

I would like either myself or my observer to see each subject disc prior to playing to see if there are any visible flaws. Not a likely scenario, but I will have a few extra sealed discs on hand to deal with any anomaly.

I apologize if I haven’t covered all the subject matter in your email. I have to get to some other tasks right now.

Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.

You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.
And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?

All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.
You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.

Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.

-Kramer, JREF
===========================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I’ll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.



You have never said that I can’t use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.



I don’t think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?



Michael



P.S. The revised protocol proposal will be coming your way shortly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:57 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.



You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.



And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?



All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.



Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael





" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
revised protocol submission "A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs (test discs)

One identical compact disc to be used as a control (control disc)

One sealed compact disc of any title to test working status of active GSIC prior to testing (reference disc)

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC

Tacky substance to adhere cardboard squares to top of GSICs

Permanent felt tip marker for labelling

Coin



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Applicant will have set up audio system to his satisfaction, using whatever audio accessories he deems necessary, prior to beginning of test. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labelled A (active) and S (spent) on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labelled 1 and 2. Applicant will label control disc and retire to listening room with reference disc and the control disc to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to listen to control disc and reference disc as he desires. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labelled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference disc in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break for lunch after 5 sessions. Additionally, two fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed, one before and one after the one-hour break, upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test disc to applicant in listening room. T1 will open test disc, examine disc for visible defects and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. During that time, T1 and T2 will choose the GSIC for the session in the following manner. T1 will turn his back, or step out of the room momentarily. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and S=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. T1 will not look under the cardboard square at the GSIC marking. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test disc into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.





Conclusion:



Applicant, and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant understands that in addition to T1 and T2, the JREF may have as many as two observers present.

Applicant understands that the test will be videotaped, and that he will be required to make a statement on camera before the test begins, and after the test ends.

Applicant may have as many as two observers present, one of which will be allowed to monitor the selection and recording of the GSICs by T2.

All of the observers and the video camera will remain out of the applicant's direct line of sight during the test.

Once the test begins, the applicant will not be allowed to make any adjustments or modifications to the audio system except in the event of a tube failure.

A CD that has a serious visible defect upon inspection will be discarded and replaced by a new CD. Applicant will have several extra CDs on hand to meet this possibility. Applicant will discuss what visible defects to look for prior to test beginning.

A CD that skips, or has other audible defects will be discarded and replaced by a new CD.

During the test, applicant will be permitted to handle only the remote that controls the CD transport, and the remote that controls the volume.

All CDs and GSICs will be handled only by T1 and T2.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.

No electronic devices are to be operated by any party except for video cameras and applicant's audio system. No ‘wireless’ electronics are to be used under any circumstances.

All parties except for applicant will remain silent at all times.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before continuing.

Both preliminary and final testing will be identical and take place in applicant's home.





" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org) kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "Stop worrying yourself to death over the as-yet hypothetical final test. Pass the preliminary first. What's your big worry? The final test will be conducted under the same conditions, but you may be required to do better than 9 out of 10, so the test may be longer. OK? Does that satisfy you?

The scientific fact is that your ears will become more acute and more sensitive if your eyes are shut a anyway, so why not agree to it if it increases your chances of passing the preliminary?

It's YOUR ""new revelation"" about looking at your system that made us wonder WHY...and since we know full well from experience in negotiating with you that you won't see any need to divulge WHY you need to SEE your system, we'll just skip to the chase and install a ""blind"" (blindfold) between yourself and the system, just to be sure that you won't be seeing something that will clue you in to which disc is playing. The best we can do for you in this regard, if you insist that a blindfold will muck up your ""natural environment"", would be to physically insert a blind between yourself and the system, while leaving the speakers totally unobstructed. How's that?

Again, this is a listening test.

-Kramer, JREF
=================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:21 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I’ll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.



You have never said that I can’t use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.



I don’t think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?



Michael



P.S. The revised protocol proposal will be coming your way shortly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:57 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.



You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.



And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?



All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.



Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael






_____



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
blindfolds a problem? "Hell, we'd give you the audio equivalent of binoculars if we thought it would help.
" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: revised protocol submission "Firstly, as I had previously stated, there will be more the just one JREF associate there. The test will be videotaped.

Secondly, regarding ""all parties remaining silent at all times"", sorry, but we will remain silent only while the LISTENING is taking place. We won't adhere to any demand for silence during the lentire length of the test, and won't cater to any such similar vanities.

Aside from the two above points, I see no other problems. I'll present this to Randi in the morning.

-Kramer, JREF
==================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: revised protocol submission


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs (test discs)

One identical compact disc to be used as a control (control disc)

One sealed compact disc of any title to test working status of active GSIC prior to testing (reference disc)

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC

Tacky substance to adhere cardboard squares to top of GSICs

Permanent felt tip marker for labelling

Coin



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Applicant will have set up audio system to his satisfaction, using whatever audio accessories he deems necessary, prior to beginning of test. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labelled A (active) and S (spent) on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labelled 1 and 2. Applicant will label control disc and retire to listening room with reference disc and the control disc to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to listen to control disc and reference disc as he desires. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labelled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference disc in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break for lunch after 5 sessions. Additionally, two fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed, one before and one after the one-hour break, upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test disc to applicant in listening room. T1 will open test disc, examine disc for visible defects and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. During that time, T1 and T2 will choose the GSIC for the session in the following manner. T1 will turn his back, or step out of the room momentarily. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and S=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. T1 will not look under the cardboard square at the GSIC marking. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test disc into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.





Conclusion:



Applicant, and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant understands that in addition to T1 and T2, the JREF may have as many as two observers present.

Applicant understands that the test will be videotaped, and that he will be required to make a statement on camera before the test begins, and after the test ends.

Applicant may have as many as two observers present, one of which will be allowed to monitor the selection and recording of the GSICs by T2.

All of the observers and the video camera will remain out of the applicant's direct line of sight during the test.

Once the test begins, the applicant will not be allowed to make any adjustments or modifications to the audio system except in the event of a tube failure.

A CD that has a serious visible defect upon inspection will be discarded and replaced by a new CD. Applicant will have several extra CDs on hand to meet this possibility. Applicant will discuss what visible defects to look for prior to test beginning.

A CD that skips, or has other audible defects will be discarded and replaced by a new CD.

During the test, applicant will be permitted to handle only the remote that controls the CD transport, and the remote that controls the volume.

All CDs and GSICs will be handled only by T1 and T2.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.

No electronic devices are to be operated by any party except for video cameras and applicant's audio system. No ‘wireless’ electronics are to be used under any circumstances.

All parties except for applicant will remain silent at all times.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before continuing.

Both preliminary and final testing will be identical and take place in applicant's home.






_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: revised protocol submission "Also, did you really mean T1 and T2 to be JREF associates, or was this a mistake? Didn't you want one to be YOUR associate?
-Kramer
==============

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: KRAMER
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: revised protocol submission


A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs (test discs)

One identical compact disc to be used as a control (control disc)

One sealed compact disc of any title to test working status of active GSIC prior to testing (reference disc)

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC

Tacky substance to adhere cardboard squares to top of GSICs

Permanent felt tip marker for labelling

Coin



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Applicant will have set up audio system to his satisfaction, using whatever audio accessories he deems necessary, prior to beginning of test. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labelled A (active) and S (spent) on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labelled 1 and 2. Applicant will label control disc and retire to listening room with reference disc and the control disc to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to listen to control disc and reference disc as he desires. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labelled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference disc in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:



The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break for lunch after 5 sessions. Additionally, two fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed, one before and one after the one-hour break, upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test disc to applicant in listening room. T1 will open test disc, examine disc for visible defects and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. During that time, T1 and T2 will choose the GSIC for the session in the following manner. T1 will turn his back, or step out of the room momentarily. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and S=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. T1 will not look under the cardboard square at the GSIC marking. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test disc into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.





Conclusion:



Applicant, and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant understands that in addition to T1 and T2, the JREF may have as many as two observers present.

Applicant understands that the test will be videotaped, and that he will be required to make a statement on camera before the test begins, and after the test ends.

Applicant may have as many as two observers present, one of which will be allowed to monitor the selection and recording of the GSICs by T2.

All of the observers and the video camera will remain out of the applicant's direct line of sight during the test.

Once the test begins, the applicant will not be allowed to make any adjustments or modifications to the audio system except in the event of a tube failure.

A CD that has a serious visible defect upon inspection will be discarded and replaced by a new CD. Applicant will have several extra CDs on hand to meet this possibility. Applicant will discuss what visible defects to look for prior to test beginning.

A CD that skips, or has other audible defects will be discarded and replaced by a new CD.

During the test, applicant will be permitted to handle only the remote that controls the CD transport, and the remote that controls the volume.

All CDs and GSICs will be handled only by T1 and T2.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.

No electronic devices are to be operated by any party except for video cameras and applicant's audio system. No ‘wireless’ electronics are to be used under any circumstances.

All parties except for applicant will remain silent at all times.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before continuing.

Both preliminary and final testing will be identical and take place in applicant's home.






_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "I don’t want observers present in the room in the first place. I have agreed to this because I think there is no way around it and I firmly believe JREF is certainly entitled to protect its interests in a reasonable manner. I think the blindfold provision is unreasonable. I will have to determine what a blind would do to the sound of my system before I could agree to that also. What exactly do you want me not to see? I have agreed not to handle any of the discs, I don’t even expect that the disc in the transport will need to be removed prior to making an identification.



My claim has always been to identify the effect 10 of 10 times. People have advised me that 90-95% is accepted as valid in scientific studies. So for you to say “So the test may be longer” does not satisfy me.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Stop worrying yourself to death over the as-yet hypothetical final test. Pass the preliminary first. What's your big worry? The final test will be conducted under the same conditions, but you may be required to do better than 9 out of 10, so the test may be longer. OK? Does that satisfy you?



The scientific fact is that your ears will become more acute and more sensitive if your eyes are shut a anyway, so why not agree to it if it increases your chances of passing the preliminary?



It's YOUR ""new revelation"" about looking at your system that made us wonder WHY...and since we know full well from experience in negotiating with you that you won't see any need to divulge WHY you need to SEE your system, we'll just skip to the chase and install a ""blind"" (blindfold) between yourself and the system, just to be sure that you won't be seeing something that will clue you in to which disc is playing. The best we can do for you in this regard, if you insist that a blindfold will muck up your ""natural environment"", would be to physically insert a blind between yourself and the system, while leaving the speakers totally unobstructed. How's that?



Again, this is a listening test.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:21 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I’ll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.



You have never said that I can’t use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.



I don’t think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?



Michael



P.S. The revised protocol proposal will be coming your way shortly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:57 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol




Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.



You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.



And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?



All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.



Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael






_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
RE: revised protocol submission "I believe that both testers have to be supplied by someone other than myself to insure the integrity of the test. Gr8wight rightly perceived, after the fact, that collusion between myself and either tester was within the realm of possibility.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:13 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: revised protocol submission



Also, did you really mean T1 and T2 to be JREF associates, or was this a mistake? Didn't you want one to be YOUR associate?
-Kramer

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: KRAMER

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:22 PM

Subject: revised protocol submission



A proposed protocol to test the claim of Michael Anda.



Materials necessary:



One active Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (GSIC)

One spent GSIC

Ten sealed identical compact discs (test discs)

One identical compact disc to be used as a control (control disc)

One sealed compact disc of any title to test working status of active GSIC prior to testing (reference disc)

Two squares of cardboard the same size as the top surface of a GSIC

Tacky substance to adhere cardboard squares to top of GSICs

Permanent felt tip marker for labelling

Coin



Participants:



JREF challenge applicant (applicant)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T1)

Volunteer acting on behalf of JREF (T2)



Set up:



The testing environment shall consist of a listening room containing the audio equipment and a selecting room containing a table. Applicant will have set up audio system to his satisfaction, using whatever audio accessories he deems necessary, prior to beginning of test. All participants will be present in the selecting room to begin the test. The active and inactive GSIC devices will be labelled A (active) and S (spent) on their top surfaces for identification purposes. The cardboard squares will be labelled 1 and 2. Applicant will label control disc and retire to listening room with reference disc and the control disc to acclimate himself. Applicant will be given 15 minute to listen to control disc and reference disc as he desires. T1 will enter listening room with active GSIC device and one cardboard square. Applicant will confirm that GSIC is the active one previously labelled. T1 will affix cardboard square to top of GSIC with tacky substance. Applicant will place reference disc in transport and instruct T1 to place the GSIC correctly on the top of the transport. Applicant will remotely press play and allow disc to spin for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and leave room. Applicant will listen for up to 10 minutes as necessary to confirm that GSIC has worked correctly, and that a difference in sound can be determined. The test is ready to begin.



Test:


The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break for lunch after 5 sessions. Additionally, two fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed, one before and one after the one-hour break, upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test disc to applicant in listening room. T1 will open test disc, examine disc for visible defects and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. During that time, T1 and T2 will choose the GSIC for the session in the following manner. T1 will turn his back, or step out of the room momentarily. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and S=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. T1 will not look under the cardboard square at the GSIC marking. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test disc into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested.





Conclusion:



Applicant, and T2 will compare record charts to determine accuracy of test. A random result would be expected to be 50% correct. In recognition of the inaccuracy of such a small sample, a successful test will consist of no fewer than 9 correct determinations.



Conditions:

Applicant understands that in addition to T1 and T2, the JREF may have as many as two observers present.

Applicant understands that the test will be videotaped, and that he will be required to make a statement on camera before the test begins, and after the test ends.

Applicant may have as many as two observers present, one of which will be allowed to monitor the selection and recording of the GSICs by T2.

All of the observers and the video camera will remain out of the applicant's direct line of sight during the test.

Once the test begins, the applicant will not be allowed to make any adjustments or modifications to the audio system except in the event of a tube failure.

A CD that has a serious visible defect upon inspection will be discarded and replaced by a new CD. Applicant will have several extra CDs on hand to meet this possibility. Applicant will discuss what visible defects to look for prior to test beginning.

A CD that skips, or has other audible defects will be discarded and replaced by a new CD.

During the test, applicant will be permitted to handle only the remote that controls the CD transport, and the remote that controls the volume.

All CDs and GSICs will be handled only by T1 and T2.

GSIC’s will remain in original containers at all times except while being handled as described by this protocol.

No electronic devices are to be operated by any party except for video cameras and applicant's audio system. No ‘wireless’ electronics are to be used under any circumstances.

All parties except for applicant will remain silent at all times.

Tube failure contingency: In the event of tube failure, applicant will be allowed 30 minutes to replace tubes and re-bias amps before continuing.

Both preliminary and final testing will be identical and take place in applicant's home.






_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "OK, Michael. How could a blind between yourself and the sound system affect the sound?
The blind would NOT cover the speakers, so the sound would NOT be affected in any way.
If you're going to insist that this is a sticking point, we can only assume that such sticking points will continue ad infinitum. The rules clearly state that the JREF will NOT cater to vanities, and we consider this to be one.

No test can occur without observers. To suggest that it can or should is contrary to the scientific process.
Any further suggestion that you want the room in which the test tales place void of any observers will be responded to with silence.

I've spoken to Randi. The entire SPENT CHIP part of your protocol is NOT acceptable. You will use a GSIC chip, and NO CHIP. Hence, your discs will be ""treated"", or ""untreated"". As I'd initially stated, the spent chip allows you (if you fail) to say that the spent chip must have had more life in it, and that cannot be allowed. We cannot accept a protocol that will give you the opportunity to say that you failed because of the test.

Randi has also instructed me to cease and desist ALL talk of the final test. I will not respond to any more questions about it, so please do not even ask. If you pass the preliminary, we will discuss it then. Please remove ALL reference to the final test from your subsequent protocol proposal, should you chose to submit one.

Here's how WE would like to proceed: You are tranfixed on the ""Conditions"" surrounding the test. We would like, from this point forward, to discuss ONLY the details of your demonstration, and NOT the ""CONDITIONS"" of the test. Let me say that again in a another way:

Your claim is that you can discern between a GSIC-treated cd, and an untreated cd. Please tell us HOW you will do that. Please do NOT tell us about the fine details of all the comforts you require DURING the test until the test itself has been negotiated. I have been instructed NOT to discuss such matters until the issue of HOW you will prove your claim has been determined. So, once again, we will NOT discuss the Conditions until we have agreed upon the actual test procedure. Your disc is either GSIC-treated, or it isn't. The matter of the spent chip is an unnecessary addition tob the procedure that cannot be allowed.

Please let me know asap if you wish to proceed.

-Kramer, JREF
============================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


I don’t want observers present in the room in the first place. I have agreed to this because I think there is no way around it and I firmly believe JREF is certainly entitled to protect its interests in a reasonable manner. I think the blindfold provision is unreasonable. I will have to determine what a blind would do to the sound of my system before I could agree to that also. What exactly do you want me not to see? I have agreed not to handle any of the discs, I don’t even expect that the disc in the transport will need to be removed prior to making an identification.



My claim has always been to identify the effect 10 of 10 times. People have advised me that 90-95% is accepted as valid in scientific studies. So for you to say “So the test may be longer” does not satisfy me.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Stop worrying yourself to death over the as-yet hypothetical final test. Pass the preliminary first. What's your big worry? The final test will be conducted under the same conditions, but you may be required to do better than 9 out of 10, so the test may be longer. OK? Does that satisfy you?



The scientific fact is that your ears will become more acute and more sensitive if your eyes are shut a anyway, so why not agree to it if it increases your chances of passing the preliminary?



It's YOUR ""new revelation"" about looking at your system that made us wonder WHY...and since we know full well from experience in negotiating with you that you won't see any need to divulge WHY you need to SEE your system, we'll just skip to the chase and install a ""blind"" (blindfold) between yourself and the system, just to be sure that you won't be seeing something that will clue you in to which disc is playing. The best we can do for you in this regard, if you insist that a blindfold will muck up your ""natural environment"", would be to physically insert a blind between yourself and the system, while leaving the speakers totally unobstructed. How's that?



Again, this is a listening test.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:21 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I’ll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.



You have never said that I can’t use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.



I don’t think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?



Michael



P.S. The revised protocol proposal will be coming your way shortly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:57 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.



You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.



And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?



All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.



Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael






_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: revised protocol submission "OK, we're fine with having two JREF associates in the T1 and T2 roles.
You'll have an observer anyway, though, correct?

Michael, I really do think it's time for us to make a mutual decision about whether or not to proceed. I find myself repeating the same things over and over again as you continue to ask questions I've asked you to refrain from
asking, and that is not adding to my confidence. I'm sure your confidence is also rather shaken by all of this.

One of the most disconcerting aspects of this is your continued insistence on having no observers in the room.
I would like for you to state for-the-record right now that you understand and accept the neccesity for observers, and that you will cease all complaints about it. I also need you to agree now and also for-the-record, that you will refrain from asking any further questions about the final test until after the preliminary test has taken place.

Then we can proceed.

-Kramer, JREF
======================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: revised protocol submission


I believe that both testers have to be supplied by someone other than myself to insure the integrity of the test. Gr8wight rightly perceived, after the fact, that collusion between myself and either tester was within the realm of possibility.



Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:13 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: revised protocol submission

Also, did you really mean T1 and T2 to be JREF associates, or was this a mistake?

Didn't you want one to be YOUR associate?
-Kramer, JREF

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "Kramer,



1a) I don’t know, I said I check into it. I have never tried setting up a blind. I don’t even know what it is you are trying to shield from my view.

1b) I consider blindfolds and blinds to be vanities; What’s a guy to do?

2) I’ve stated that an observer in the listening room is something I am now prepared to accept. I view it as a potential escape portal, but I have to respect your right to such a provision. Let me state for the record again that my desire is to eliminate every escape portal. This does not appear to be completely possible in practical terms.

3) I am willing to accept input from JREF on any alternative methodologies to the “spent” chip dilemma, if you can call it that.

4) If the final testing is not identical to the preliminary testing I believe that I have been misled by JREF.

5) The conditions of the testing are more important to me than the protocol details, this is not to say the details of the protocol aren’t important however.

6) I wrote to you previously with the essence of my requirements, I strongly believe there is nothing unreasonable about any of these points. Here is what I stated.



As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.



These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.



Michael







-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:34 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



OK, Michael. How could a blind between yourself and the sound system affect the sound?

The blind would NOT cover the speakers, so the sound would NOT be affected in any way.

If you're going to insist that this is a sticking point, we can only assume that such sticking points will continue ad infinitum. The rules clearly state that the JREF will NOT cater to vanities, and we consider this to be one.



No test can occur without observers. To suggest that it can or should is contrary to the scientific process.

Any further suggestion that you want the room in which the test tales place void of any observers will be responded to with silence.



I've spoken to Randi. The entire SPENT CHIP part of your protocol is NOT acceptable. You will use a GSIC chip, and NO CHIP. Hence, your discs will be ""treated"", or ""untreated"". As I'd initially stated, the spent chip allows you (if you fail) to say that the spent chip must have had more life in it, and that cannot be allowed. We cannot accept a protocol that will give you the opportunity to say that you failed because of the test.



Randi has also instructed me to cease and desist ALL talk of the final test. I will not respond to any more questions about it, so please do not even ask. If you pass the preliminary, we will discuss it then. Please remove ALL reference to the final test from your subsequent protocol proposal, should you chose to submit one.



Here's how WE would like to proceed: You are tranfixed on the ""Conditions"" surrounding the test. We would like, from this point forward, to discuss ONLY the details of your demonstration, and NOT the ""CONDITIONS"" of the test. Let me say that again in a another way:



Your claim is that you can discern between a GSIC-treated cd, and an untreated cd. Please tell us HOW you will do that. Please do NOT tell us about the fine details of all the comforts you require DURING the test until the test itself has been negotiated. I have been instructed NOT to discuss such matters until the issue of HOW you will prove your claim has been determined. So, once again, we will NOT discuss the Conditions until we have agreed upon the actual test procedure. Your disc is either GSIC-treated, or it isn't. The matter of the spent chip is an unnecessary addition tob the procedure that cannot be allowed.



Please let me know asap if you wish to proceed.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 5:36 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



I don’t want observers present in the room in the first place. I have agreed to this because I think there is no way around it and I firmly believe JREF is certainly entitled to protect its interests in a reasonable manner. I think the blindfold provision is unreasonable. I will have to determine what a blind would do to the sound of my system before I could agree to that also. What exactly do you want me not to see? I have agreed not to handle any of the discs, I don’t even expect that the disc in the transport will need to be removed prior to making an identification.



My claim has always been to identify the effect 10 of 10 times. People have advised me that 90-95% is accepted as valid in scientific studies. So for you to say “So the test may be longer” does not satisfy me.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:54 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Stop worrying yourself to death over the as-yet hypothetical final test. Pass the preliminary first. What's your big worry? The final test will be conducted under the same conditions, but you may be required to do better than 9 out of 10, so the test may be longer. OK? Does that satisfy you?



The scientific fact is that your ears will become more acute and more sensitive if your eyes are shut a anyway, so why not agree to it if it increases your chances of passing the preliminary?



It's YOUR ""new revelation"" about looking at your system that made us wonder WHY...and since we know full well from experience in negotiating with you that you won't see any need to divulge WHY you need to SEE your system, we'll just skip to the chase and install a ""blind"" (blindfold) between yourself and the system, just to be sure that you won't be seeing something that will clue you in to which disc is playing. The best we can do for you in this regard, if you insist that a blindfold will muck up your ""natural environment"", would be to physically insert a blind between yourself and the system, while leaving the speakers totally unobstructed. How's that?



Again, this is a listening test.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:21 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



I am attempting to listen in as natural environment as I possibly can. Blindfolds are not my natural environment. I’ll have to seriously take a look at this NEW revelation.



You have never said that I can’t use my own system, Gr8wight speculated that this might be acceptable to you for the final testing, I wanted to confirm my assumption.



I don’t think asking how the final testing could be different from preliminary testing at all unreasonable. I am under the impression it will be exactly identical to the preliminary testing. Am I correct with this assumption?



Michael



P.S. The revised protocol proposal will be coming your way shortly.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:57 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Your ""line of sight""? Whoa. What are you looking for, exactly? I thought this was a listening test.



You will not be allowed to LOOK at your system, either. I can't imagine why sight is a necessary ingedient in ANY listening test. You'll be in the same room, with your back turned toward the system, and you can trust your observer to insure that no participant or observer ""cheats"". If you insist on facing your system because you need to be face-to-face with the speakers in order to pass the test, that'll be fine, so long as you agree to wear a blindfold.



And when did we EVER deny you the right to be tested in your own home, on your own system, with your own plethora of audiophile devices,as per your wish? You'd stipulated that right from the start. Why bring that up now?



All questions from you about the final test are WAY premature. We won't discuss it. Pass the preliminary test first.

You say you need to focus without distractions. So why distract yourself with hypotheticals? Next you'll be asking if the prize comes in 20's or 50's. We suggest that you stick to the issue at hand, and not put the cart before the horse. You yourself, by your own complex protocol proposal, have illustrated (far better than we ever could) just how difficult a job it's going to be for you to pass the preliminary.



Focus on that goal, and you have a better chance at the prize.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:27 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol

Thanks Kramer,

Hopefully Gr8wight and I will have an acceptable protocol on its way before the end of the day. We are working on it as I write to you. While I’d like to be alone in the listening area I will agree to having an observer present. I have put in a stipulation that no observer be allowed in my line of sight to the audio system. Everything else appears to be agreeable.

I do want to be clear on one point, I am operating under the assumption that both tests will occur in my home.

Also, assuming I pass the preliminary test, how much time needs to elapse before the final testing?

I am also assuming that the final test will be identical to the preliminary in every way.

Please correct any flawed assumptions on my part. - Michael






_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.16 - Release Date: 4/18/2005


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Steve Eddy (info@q-audio.com);[Gr8wight] info@q-audio.com;[Gr8wight] SMTP;SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "1a) - OK, again you skirt the question of WHY you need to see your system, so let's just skip it. Just be advised that you will be blinded from your system by an opaque barrier that will insure that you cannot see your system in operation.
1b) - Offer an alternative. We're not demanding a blindfold, and we can see how this might make you uneasy, so we need to agree upon some kind of visual barrier between yourself and the system.
2) - Thank you. We now ask that you refrain from complaing about it any further.
3) - One disc will be treated with the GSIC device. The other will NOT. The problem is now solved, if you agree that this is an acceptable solution.
4) - As previously and repeatedly stated, we will no longer address this.
5) - Interesting statement. Suffice to say that the details of the test are JREF's primary concern.

Anda quote: These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.

Read the Challenge rules. Withdraw your claim if you refuse to abide by them.

-Kramer, JREF
============================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 1:10 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



Kramer,



1a) I don’t know, I said I check into it. I have never tried setting up a blind. I don’t even know what it is you are trying to shield from my view.

1b) I consider blindfolds and blinds to be vanities; What’s a guy to do?

2) I’ve stated that an observer in the listening room is something I am now prepared to accept. I view it as a potential escape portal, but I have to respect your right to such a provision. Let me state for the record again that my desire is to eliminate every escape portal. This does not appear to be completely possible in practical terms.

3) I am willing to accept input from JREF on any alternative methodologies to the “spent” chip dilemma, if you can call it that.

4) If the final testing is not identical to the preliminary testing I believe that I have been misled by JREF.


5) The conditions of the testing are more important to me than the protocol details, this is not to say the details of the protocol aren’t important however.

6) I wrote to you previously with the essence of my requirements, I strongly believe there is nothing unreasonable about any of these points. Here is what I stated.



As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.



These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.



Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "1a) - I would say that having the test conducted in your own home and on your own system achieves something more than ""a close approximation"" of your customary conditions. It's not even a replication thereof. It IS in fact your home, your system, and your conditions. All we want is to blind you from seeing the system, and assuming that your remote control unit doesn't malfunction (install new batteries before the test to insure against this, if you like), there is no need for you to see the cd player. An opaque bedsheet, for example, would blind you from the unit while
allowing the remote control signal to pass through. An observer can verify that the switch has taken place as intended, if you require that.

1b) - See above.

2) - There will be no observer between yourself and your system. See above, again.

3) - Please clarify point #3. Frankly, I've lost track, so I'm not sure what you are refering to.

4) - Good idea.

5) - Well thanks.

Regarding your question about what is unsolvable, well, nothing is unsolvable, so long as you remove the following:
...the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing.

Keep this up and we're deadlocked. Remove it and we can proceed.

Your move.

-Kramer, JREF
==============================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



1a) I simply require a listening environment that closely approximates my customary conditions. The only reason that I would need to see my equipment is to operate the remote controls.

1b) I have no alternative to offer, tell me what your concern is in this regard and I will try to come up with a method to alleviate your unstated concern.

2) I am not complaining about having an observer present, I simply point out that it has the potential to be an escape portal. If this is what you deem to be complaining, well, what can I say? I have stated that I accept this condition because you require it. I would deem an observer stationed between me and my system to be an unnecessary distraction.

3) Let me know by what method you would choose to facilitate this necessity and I will let you know if I find it to be acceptable. I have offered my solution, it appears you are rejecting what I consider to be a reasonable and practical methodology.

4) I will have to re-read the Challenge rules along with the record to comment on this.

5) As it should be from your vantage point.

What, if anything, do you find about the following to be unsolvable?

As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential

1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise

2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here

3) GSIC covered, not contained

4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods

I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.

These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.-- Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "Michael, I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days. Let's pick this up again on Monday upon my return.- Kramer

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


1a) I simply require a listening environment that closely approximates my customary conditions. The only reason that I would need to see my equipment is to operate the remote controls.

1b) I have no alternative to offer, tell me what your concern is in this regard and I will try to come up with a method to alleviate your unstated concern.

2) I am not complaining about having an observer present, I simply point out that it has the potential to be an escape portal. If this is what you deem to be complaining, well, what can I say? I have stated that I accept this condition because you require it. I would deem an observer stationed between me and my system to be an unnecessary distraction.

3) Let me know by what method you would choose to facilitate this necessity and I will let you know if I find it to be acceptable. I have offered my solution, it appears you are rejecting what I consider to be a reasonable and practical methodology.

4) I will have to re-read the Challenge rules along with the record to comment on this.

5) As it should be from your vantage point.



What, if anything, do you find about the following to be unsolvable?





As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential


1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.



These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "I just posted a message at JREF Forum under the Audio Critic thread stating that I was going to give these talks another day to shape up or I was going to table the matter until October 1.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:03 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



Michael, I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days. Let's pick this up again on Monday upon my return.- Kramer

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Cc: Steve Eddy ; [Gr8wight]

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 3:41 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



1a) I simply require a listening environment that closely approximates my customary conditions. The only reason that I would need to see my equipment is to operate the remote controls.

1b) I have no alternative to offer, tell me what your concern is in this regard and I will try to come up with a method to alleviate your unstated concern.

2) I am not complaining about having an observer present, I simply point out that it has the potential to be an escape portal. If this is what you deem to be complaining, well, what can I say? I have stated that I accept this condition because you require it. I would deem an observer stationed between me and my system to be an unnecessary distraction.

3) Let me know by what method you would choose to facilitate this necessity and I will let you know if I find it to be acceptable. I have offered my solution, it appears you are rejecting what I consider to be a reasonable and practical methodology.

4) I will have to re-read the Challenge rules along with the record to comment on this.

5) As it should be from your vantage point.



What, if anything, do you find about the following to be unsolvable?





As I see things I have the following desires that I see as being essential



1) Peaceful environment, free of unecessary distraction and noise



2) Enough time, 20 minutes of listening to an untreated subject disc, followed by 10 minutes to identify the state after “treatment”, eliminates any escape portal here



3) GSIC covered, not contained



4) My own observer in the selection room, this desire can be obviated with more complicated methods



I really can’t imagine having a problem with any sensible protocol that accounts for these items. FYI, Item 2 has become of greater concern to me since my original proposal. I live and learn.



These provisions, coupled with a reasonable test protocol consisting of 10 identifications, and the assurance that the final testing be identical to the preliminary testing are all that I require for you to test my claim.



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: JREF Protocol "And I just posted my reply to your childish threat, which if carried out will only result in the immediate rejection of your claim.

-Kramer, JREF
==================================================================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:35 PM
Subject: RE: JREF Protocol


I just posted a message at JREF Forum under the Audio Critic thread stating that I was going to give these talks another day to shape up or I was going to table the matter until October 1.



Michael

" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: JREF Protocol "It was neither a threat, nor was it childish. You’ve stated that you have better things to do with your spring and summer. What makes you think I don’t have better things to do over that time as well? If we are in fact making progress great. I have a significant issue with this final testing business. We haven’t discussed the matter in a long time and I will have to go over the record to see if my assumptions were correct.



Michael



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:15 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: JREF Protocol



And I just posted my reply to your childish threat, which if carried out will only result in the immediate rejection of your claim.



-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'Kramer'

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 4:35 PM

Subject: RE: JREF Protocol



I just posted a message at JREF Forum under the Audio Critic thread stating that I was going to give these talks another day to shape up or I was going to table the matter until October 1.



Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
dummy chip "Kramer,



Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?



Michael

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'KRAMER (Kramer@randi.org)' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
Re: dummy chip "Use the HOWARD protocol.
-Kramer, JREF
====================

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: dummy chip


Kramer,



Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?



Michael


_____




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005


" Kramer kramer@randi.org SMTP Michael [privacy edit] SMTP Normal
RE: dummy chip "My protocol is better than the Howard protocol in that it allows for the GSIC to be applied in a manner closer to the instructions of the manufacturer. I will research the matter however.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: dummy chip



Use the HOWARD protocol.

-Kramer, JREF

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

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael

To: 'KRAMER'

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM

Subject: dummy chip



Kramer,



Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?



Michael


_____


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005

" Michael [privacy edit] SMTP 'Kramer' kramer@randi.org SMTP Normal Normal
 
Looks to me like Wellfed has been taking posting lessons from PianoTeacher.

But you still haven't done a proper test by yourself? Will it take another 20,000-word post to find out why you are refusing to perform this vital step?

"My Struggle"="Mein Kampf"? Such a martyr you are.
 
Sherman Bay said:
Looks to me like Wellfed has been taking posting lessons from PianoTeacher.
Click to expand...

I consider that a compliment. PianoTeacher is the only person I've noted that sees the difficulty in what I propose to have tested.

And FWIW, it looks to me like you have been taking your own lessons from webfusion.

Sherman Bay said:
But you still haven't done a proper test by yourself? Will it take another 20,000-word post to find out why you are refusing to perform this vital step?
Click to expand...

Pretty lame Sherman

Sherman Bay said:
"My Struggle"="Mein Kampf"? Such a martyr you are.
Click to expand...

Someone mentioned that Kramer enjoys using catchy titles for Challenge threads. I enjoy playful titles too. I thought this one both catchy and appropriate.

Did you find this post to be enlightning in any way?
 
Originally posted by Sherman Bay:
But you still haven't done a proper test by yourself? Will it take another 20,000-word post to find out why you are refusing to perform this vital step?

Wellfed said:
Pretty lame Sherman
Click to expand...

So, have you done a proper test, yourself? If not, why not?
 
Beady said:
Originally posted by Sherman Bay:
But you still haven't done a proper test by yourself? Will it take another 20,000-word post to find out why you are refusing to perform this vital step?



So, have you done a proper test, yourself? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Beady, the answer(s) to your question are in the Audio Critic thread. Repeating myself on this subject only serves to enrage apparently. FWIW, I am, as we speak, doing an improper test. ;)

I like your Marvin Martian avatar.
 
Wellfed said:
Someone mentioned that Kramer enjoys using catchy titles for Challenge threads. I enjoy playful titles too. I thought this one both catchy and appropriate.

Did you find this post to be enlightning in any way?
Click to expand...

Catchy maybe; appropriate, no, given the circumstances.

Thank you for posting all the emails. I'll review them in detail a bit later and post here to say if my perceptions of the events have changed.
 
Wellfed, if I may?

Wellfed:

As you can see, I'm using my first posting. I'm not a sock or whatever you want to call it, I just have been a long time lurker who finally got off his behind and registered . . .:D

If I might be rude enough to presume to offer some advice?

I really think you need to step back, take a breath and just let this go for now. You are becoming just a bit obsessed with "proving" your side of the story. As a long time lurker who followed this story from the start, I see the following:
1) You are woefully unprepared to do this test, period. You should have done some research into the matter at JREF before throwing down the gauntlet. You seem to have very little if any regard for double blind (or any kind of blind) testing and thus cannot design a good test protocol. I'd seek out the help of a good Psych teacher at a local college, correspond with Piano Teacher, read a book on the scientific method. Heck, I'll help you (even though I'm only a chemist). For the record - I agree with PT, the current protocol is pretty dismal.
2) As to address item #1 - make a list of (a) what you are claiming (b) the frequency of success you expect and (c) likely conditions you expect to need to meet (b). IF you need to see the stereo in action to have any success, you should be up front with that requirement. It should be easy enough to do, just have your daughter write down exactly what you do when you prepare a disc. Then you go over it with her and add anything, and I do mean anything, you feel is important. Even time of day might be a matter to consider, for all I know.
3) Please, and I'm not trying to be an (rule 8) here, try to be nice and address the questions people ask you. It is really irritating to have to ask the same question 5 or 6 or 50 times. If you don't have an answer "I don't know" should be perfectly acceptable.
4) Please, again not trying to be an (rule 8), do tests. Notice I said "tests". You could have saved a lot of stress by asking here "how would I go about testing this claim?" and then FOLLOWING THROUGH. I think a lot of people here respected you for stepping up the bat and you dissappointed more than one person (myself) by not doing this early on. Life is hard, as the man said, but you don't gain anything by deluding yourself.

Sorry for the long post, I felt this needed to be said since Wellfed seems (to me at least) to be walking down the road to bitterness and anger. For the record, I don't think the GSIC device works but I was hoping we could, as a community, come up with a test worthy of a journal. Thanks!

Marc
 
Re: Wellfed, if I may?

Thanks Marc,

I am well aware of the ill effects caused by bitterness. I am on my guard. Emotions need release. I will no doubt make my way through it.

It was important to me to have this full record available. Of course telephone conversations are also a portion of the record, unfortunately they can not be documented verbatim.
 
Wellfed said:
Beady, the answer(s) to your question are in the Audio Critic thread. Repeating myself on this subject only serves to enrage apparently. FWIW, I am, as we speak, doing an improper test. ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I am not going to read through 903 (at the moment) posts.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were going for $1 million, I'd be doing everything I could think of to destroy my own claim before it got to the point where I could no longer back out gracefully.

To quote Lady Barbara Hornblower, "The fortunate man is the one who knows how much he can safely leave to chance." With $1 million, and your reputation, at stake, how much are you going to leave to chance?
 
Beady said:
Sorry, but I am not going to read through 903 (at the moment) posts.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were going for $1 million, I'd be doing everything I could think of to destroy my own claim before it got to the point where I could no longer back out gracefully.

To quote Lady Barbara Hornblower, "The fortunate man is the one who knows how much he can safely leave to chance." With $1 million, and your reputation, at stake, how much are you going to leave to chance?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I really do need my own FAQ section here at the Forum.

I don't have time at the moment to answer your question adequately, but I will write you privately some time.
 
Wellfed said:
I consider that a compliment. PianoTeacher is the only person I've noted that sees the difficulty in what I propose to have tested.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but do you really think anyone will read such posts? Yours is an exercise in redundancy from the Department of Redundancy Dept.
And FWIW, it looks to me like you have been taking your own lessons from webfusion.
Click to expand...
Web-who? Never met the dude. :)
Wellfed said:
Originally posted by Sherman Bay
But you still haven't done a proper test by yourself? Will it take another 20,000-word post to find out why you are refusing to perform this vital step?
Click to expand...
Pretty lame Sherman
Click to expand...
That may be a dig, a quip or a retort, but it ain't no answer. Still avoiding the issue, are we?

Don't you remember -- I was one of your biggest supporters at the start of your claim & project. I thought you were genuinely interested in finding out the truth, or failing that, winning a ****** of money. Boy, was I wrong. Now I don't know what the hell you are trying to do.

Marcchem, thanks for adding your voice and good advice to the fray, but I'm afraid it's no use. Wellfed is just like all the others. Too bad. :(

"My Struggle," eh? :v:

Edited by Darat: 
Edited for breach of Rule 8.
 
jmercer said:
Catchy maybe; appropriate, no, given the circumstances.
Click to expand...

So many excuses, so little time.

The thing to remember about using "Mein Kampf" self-referentially as a subject heading is that Adolph Hitler was the most deservingly villified person of the 20th century.
 
Wellfed said:
I don't have time at the moment to answer your question adequately, but I will write you privately some time.
Click to expand...

Publicly will do just fine.

And it really doesn't seem like a question that would require a complicated answer. A simple "I'm that confidant/lazy/whatever," would do it.

It's beginning to look like the others are correct about evasion.
 
Moose said:
...

The thing to remember about using "Mein Kampf" self-referentially as a subject heading is that Adolph Hitler was the most deservingly villified person of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

I used the title loosely. Don't expect me to be mesmerizing a whole nation anytime soon. I am as anti-Hitler as he was anti-Christ. I find NO virtue in Hitler, in fact, I believe he was evil incarnate.
 
Beady said:
Publicly will do just fine.

And it really doesn't seem like a question that would require a complicated answer. A simple "I'm that confidant/lazy/whatever," would do it.

It's beginning to look like the others are correct about evasion.
Click to expand...

Looks can be decieving Beady. Nefarious activities by Kramer is my short answer for my failure to test myself. Self-testing is an option that is highly recommended by both JREF and the vast majority here at JREF. While I'm not a DBT sort of guy, I was willing to do these tests as a good will gesture along with the fact that, I too, consider it prudent.

The problem with my public perception regarding this testing is that I have backed out of two publicly stated intentions to test. I assume this negative perception may also be coupled with my casual attitude about DBT testing. I have nothing against the practice personally.

Both times I committed publicly to doing tests, Kramer either exhibited acts of ill will, or outright lies, just prior to the proposed testing. It appears that he knew where my hottest button was located. I just simply can't stand dealing with a deceiver and a liar.

I was so agitated after the first offense I mentioned that I didn't think I could even detect the GSIC effect under sighted conditions. To say that I was bristling mad is an understatement. The second event was this last Tuesday when Kramer's brazen lies caused me to table matters until October 1. He then claims to have rejected my claim for this sorry reason. There's a whole lot more to the story than I've given here.
 
This was Wellfed's reply to the "Why haven't you done your own dbt yet" question yesterday on the Audio Critic thread:

As crazy as it sounds, something always seems to come up that keeps me from doing this. This weekend for example I want to spend listening for enjoyment, my soul requiring the nourishment, and also interleave my JREF email correspondence. My family keeps me busy as usual. Birthday party for my wife and nephew tonight, yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...

Mr. Anda, I've been following your challenge since the beginning and I was very excited to see your application. I thought that this should be the easiest thing in the world to test and it's going to happen soon.

Up until that post yesterday, I was really giving you every benefit of the doubt, but that's where you lost me. And now today we have a different excuse for why you didn't do the tests, ie. Kramer upset you when he knew you were about to test.

I've been careful to read everything you and Kramer have posted and have really tried not to take sides, but I think that it's reached a point where your really need to leave this be for a while, because you are not being honest with yourself.

I really do wish you the best and I hope that you do get your shot at the challenge. I'll look forward to seeing how your own testing and hopefully your new challenge application progress. Good luck to you.
 
Having reviewed the emails you posted, I found nothing that alters my perspective on the situation. In fact, recent public exchanges by you here in this forum reinforced my views.
 
Good evening Wellfed.

I also have been following this from the begining. I am having serious doubts as to why exactly you decided to apply for the challenge to beging with. It seems, to me at least, that you had no intentions of following this through at all.
What exactly is the point of this badly put together thread? Once again, to me, at least, it seems that you are doing what ever you can to grab some attention.
Perhaps I am wrong. Your application has been rejected for reasons we all see. Agree with them or not, but it is over. Move on to another subject. There are plenty here on the JREF. I am sure that you have things to contribute. It's time to move on, don't you think? You realize that you can get yourself together and reapply next year. If you are serious, you can be better prepared. Who knows, maybe some time in the next year you might be able to spend a few hours to conduct a test on your own? Although I admit I'm not a big fan of that. With your bias you just might missconfirm a belief you already have.
Anyway, thanks for you participation in the challenge. Sorry it didn't work out. Better luck next time. Hopefully see you on other topics. What about those wooden knobs with special shalack that makes a stereo sound better?
JPK
 
Wellfed said:
Here is the record of ALL email correspondence between JREF and myself.....

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

I didn't bother reading your post. Is it full of more of your lies about Kramer?
 
Michael Anda said this:

And to think I continue to make this same mistake when I already know better. Sorry.
Click to expand...

His quote (from April20th posting in the topic --- "Michael Anda and the psychology of the Challenge applicant") could apply equally to this thread also!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Sparrow
Photography today , whats wrong with it, my struggles
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
12K
bruto
bruto
Undesired Walrus
How much should one struggle?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Nessie
Nessie
Cainkane1
My continuing struggle with my Mormon nemesis.
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Complexity
C
Wolfman
Myanmar's Unnoticed Struggle for Freedom
2 3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
5K
petra10
petra10
W
Cracking Up--The power struggle in the New Republican Party
2
Replies
21
Views
7K
zakur
Z

Back
Top Bottom