Audio Critic

[jmercer]

A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION:

Relevant to the GSIC (Golden Sound Intelligent Chip) which I've been mis-acronyming for the last few posts, and other "new technology" devices ...

Without the manufacturer or applicant providing a comprehensive explanation of how a device purports to work, how does JREF detemine whether a new device employs commonly accepted physical principles or is "unexplained" by science?

- Timothy

In the case of GSIC - given the physical composition of a CD and the technology used to make one work... plus the methodology for supposedly using the GSIC... I'd say that a comprehensive explanation would be moot as far as the prize goes. (Assuming it works, which it won't without fraud involved.)

But any claim that was successfully demonstrated would show either a new physical principles or dimensions of the old ones that were unsuspected... and, of course, once demonstrated, it would become part of the "natural" instead of the supernatural. That's why JREF has a contract - so the demonstration under the rules is enough.

 

[Drooper]

One interesting thing is that the applicant doesn't seem to be aware of the need for a preliminary test and his test only has odds of 1-1000.

hmmm... wonder if Randi would let me take that test. Considerably better odds than the lottery.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Test will be conducted on my primary sound system (the system I have described at Audio Asylum under username Wellfed) located within my residence in Fargo, ND USA.

All accessory products I use within my system are allowed to remain.

Hidden camera? Even within the equipment?

 

[Rob Lister]

The more I think about it, the more I am convenced that there absolutely must be another setup, one supplied by JREF that matches, to a good degree, the set-up of the applicant. There is no way I can see to do a valid test using a chip with unknown guts. The applicant will of course abstain (and complain greatly in so doing) but that's the only way.

I agree with the other poster that this test should not be allowed insofar as the challenge is concerned. There's nothing paranormal claimed, only trickery and cons.

 

[Timothy]

Do not be fooled into thinking that it's okay to let this applicant slide on the protocol for the preliminary since the protocol for the formal testing will be more rigorous and that's where JREF needs to exercise the most care. In my opinion, this applicant does not expect to win the challenge. He wants to pass the preliminary. And it's in JREF's best interest to see that the applicant doesn't.

An applicant with sufficiently complex, devious, concealed equipment could use secretive devices intended to defraud in order to pass the preliminary. What would happen then, though?

The protocol for the formal test would have to be agreed upon. The formal test would obviously be designed on JREF's part with everything in mind to circumvent fraud. At this point, it's not the monetary value of the prize that is as important to JREF as its reputation. So JREF will only agree on a formal test that prevents, in its opinion, all elements of fraud.

This puts the onus on the applicant for the costs of such a test. Suppose that the applicant does pass the preliminary and becomes a claimant. I would doubt that JREF would *ever* approve of a formal test conducted in his house. From where would the audio equipment come? His original equipment? (JREF would insist upon opening and dissecting it to detect any fraudulent device.) Would the claimant agree? Would new audio equipment be bought? It's clearly stated that all costs are borne by the claimant. I could see endless negotiations where a formal testing protocol would not be agreed upon. Who wins? The claimant gets publicity, strings things along forever, claims that JREF is not negotiating in good faith, insists that JREF is being unreasonable by making *him* buy all new equipment, claims that he's close to passing and JREF is waffling to avoid inevitably paying up, touts his preliminary win, and all the while sells GSICs to the gullible. What does JREF get out of it? Almost nothing.

This applicant needs to be monitored extremely closely.

- Timothy

 

[Timothy]

In the case of GSIC - given the physical composition of a CD and the technology used to make one work... plus the methodology for supposedly using the GSIC... I'd say that a comprehensive explanation would be moot as far as the prize goes.

But I haven't seen any documentation that claims how it works. What I'm suggesting is that an explanation is required, not for the prize, but to be considered as an applicant.

Is it impossible that a device, sitting on top of a CD player can do what is claimed? No. There is nothing *physically* impossible about a device that can read the entire contents of the disc using sophisticated X-ray interferometric imaging techniques, and then using the same X-ray sources in interfering coherent waves slightly reform the pits of the CD to improve its sound. Do I think it can be done presently with a little plastic doohicky? No. Do I think it's what he's claiming? No. But without an explanation of the proposed method of how it works, you *can't* say that it's violating a physical principle.

As I come to think of it, I believe he can do what his application says. He can with his own equipment, perform the demonstration. So what if there are surreptitious camera, devices, etc. that allow him to detect a difference in a CD? His application never says that he won't do such a thing. Without him explaining that the chip employs a heretofore unknown physical principle, what his application really says is, "I am going to perform a magic trick for you."

- Timothy

 

[TjW]

It doesn't matter if the two original disks are not quite identical. The test is not to tell two disks apart, but to determine which has been "chipped" and which not. The disks are to be randomly chipped by the tester during the testing process.

The surface treatment shouldn't be a problem either--the applicant seems to be saying that ALL disks will get the surface treatment. But only half will be "chipped".

I think the surface treatment IS a problem, and should not be allowed.
The coating is almost certain to be non-uniform, possibly creating a difference between the disks. He doesn't have to hear something better, just something different.

TjW

 

[TheBoyPaj]

TjW, this really doesn't matter. Imagine if we took this to extremes, and used completely different CDs. Say, a copy of William Shatner's "The Transformed Man" and a copy of Leonard Nimoy's "Spock Sings".
The difference between these two recordings, ghastly though they both are, would be clear to even casual listeners.

But, when the process of "chipping" is done to one of these musical travesties, the Audiophile-expert is not present. He doesn't know whether it was Shatner's hammy acting or Nimoy's earnest reworkings which was exposed to the magic of the chip.

So it doesn't matter if he can tell the difference. he's still got a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

It all depends on successfully hiding the identity of the "chipped" recording.

 

[Gr8wight]

But I haven't seen any documentation that claims how it works. What I'm suggesting is that an explanation is required, not for the prize, but to be considered as an applicant.

Is it impossible that a device, sitting on top of a CD player can do what is claimed? No. There is nothing *physically* impossible about a device that can read the entire contents of the disc using sophisticated X-ray interferometric imaging techniques, and then using the same X-ray sources in interfering coherent waves slightly reform the pits of the CD to improve its sound. Do I think it can be done presently with a little plastic doohicky? No. Do I think it's what he's claiming? No. But without an explanation of the proposed method of how it works, you *can't* say that it's violating a physical principle.

As I come to think of it, I believe he can do what his application says. He can with his own equipment, perform the demonstration. So what if there are surreptitious camera, devices, etc. that allow him to detect a difference in a CD? His application never says that he won't do such a thing. Without him explaining that the chip employs a heretofore unknown physical principle, what his application really says is, "I am going to perform a magic trick for you."

- Timothy

You seem to think this claimant is out to defraud the JREF. I believe the opposite. I think this claimant actually believes his claim, and he is going to be uncomprehending and distraught when he fails the test.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

Fargo, huh? I hope they at least audio tape the session. The funny accents will add to the entertainment value of the test.

 

[TjW]

<snippage>

So it doesn't matter if he can tell the difference. he's still got a 50/50 chance of guessing right.

It all depends on successfully hiding the identity of the "chipped" recording.

If he can reliably differentiate the CDs, then his odds become even instead of a thousand to 1. Just always pick 'A'.

If different pairs are used for each of the ten trials, then I agree he's no better off.

TjW

 

[IXP]

You seem to think this claimant is out to defraud the JREF. I believe the opposite. I think this claimant actually believes his claim, and he is going to be uncomprehending and distraught when he fails the test.

There is one way to find out. Propose a protocol in which the disc is "chipped" on another CD player provided by JREF to which he has no access. If he agrees to this, then he is not using one of the methods mentioned to mark the "chipped" CD. He would be allowed to do an open test on the CDs (where he knows which is which) to verify the the alternate equipment is working properly and he can detect the difference.

I agree with the fraud theory:

Detecting the GSIC on top of the player is trivial -- a photocell will do just fine. Adding something to the CD player to mark it is a little more difficult but not outside the reach of a home electronics and electromechanical experimenter. All that is needed is a binary marking which can later be detected. Then, when you play back the CDs use electronics to detect whether or not the CD is marked, and if NOT place something in the path that degrades the sound. This way, the JREF observers, to their amazement, would hear the difference as well!

(edited for spelling)

IXP

 

[IXP]

Another comment on the nature of CD sound encoding.

CDs, as was already mentioned are encoded with binary information, i.e. the level of the audio waveform is sampled about 44000 times per second and recorded as a binary number. Someone stated that losing a few bits would not be detectable but this is not true. Changing low order bits in the binary number would not be detectable, but changing a high order bit would sound as as click if it were allowed through to the audio. CDs incorporate redunant information and error detection and correction techniques to prevent this. When a CD is not readable, it blanks the audio, as you have probably experienced. I suspect that if you were to capture the binary stream fed from the CD player to the digital-to-analog converter from two undamaged CDs they would be identical.

All of this, of couse, makes the premise of the device absurd. The only way to affect the sound of an CD would be to alter the bits.

IXP

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is one way to find out. Propose a protocol in which the disc is "chipped" on another CD player provided by JREF to which he has no access. If he agrees to this, then he is not using one of the methods mentioned to mark the "chipped" CD.

I agree. But we have to remember that he probably have an ultra expensive transport coupled to an ultra expensive digital/analog converter.

Maybe thats the whole reason he wants to use his equipment, because "it is perfectly transparent and accurate". hard core audiophiles think that way.

 

[Winterfrost]

- He should not be able to examine the discs, thereby eliminating any chance he is making an identification through signs of handling or any other kind of visual marking (caused by the Treater).

- The Treater should be eliminated entirely, if possible, as we don't know if the chip and Treater could be reacting in some way. The test is for the chip only. (Paranoid, maybe, but it's one less variable.)

- The chipping must be done in a separate CD player, supplied by JREF to avoid possible rigging of his home equipment.

- The chipping must be done under concealment to avoid possible hidden cameras. Alternatively, it could be done off-site, but then he would have to supply a witness and the "integrity" of the disks during transport might come up for question...


For the record, I don't think this is a scam. I think that he will be surprised when he can't identify the disks. But he must be hearing a significant difference if he has the confidence to say he can identify 10 disks without error!

Mind you, dowsers have shown that same confidence...

 

[KRAMER]

I disagree

I must disagree with some who feel that this applicant is out to defraud the JREF. He is definitely an honest cat who truly believes that this little chip works wonders. I have just spoken with him via telephone, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that he isn't wholly confident of his ability to prove his claim. He is courteous and polite. No red flags anywhere, so far as I can see.

But of course the protrocol needs work. For one thing, using his own system in his own home seems like a bad thing to do. The "coating" process seems to be another point that needs to be thrown out. Yes, there is much to be done here, but I have a funny feeling that this claim WILL be tested, eventually.

 

[jmercer]

If he won't throw out the coating process, have ALL of them coated.

 

[Wellfed]

I think the surface treatment IS a problem, and should not be allowed.
The coating is almost certain to be non-uniform, possibly creating a difference between the disks. He doesn't have to hear something better, just something different.

TjW

I am the applicant for this Challenge and this is a concern of mine as well. I am not really hung up on this point as much as I am concerned about uniformity of treatment. Presumably one of the things Walker Vivid does is to remove "mold release agent" from the disc. I would like two uniform discs with the only difference between the two being the GSIC treatment.

 

[KRAMER]

Welcome

Welcome to the forum, friend.

You'll find much interest and good advice here that will hopefully lead us to a timely testing of your claim.

 

[Wellfed]

Fargo, huh? I hope they at least audio tape the session. The funny accents will add to the entertainment value of the test.

Ya, you betcha