• 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.

Audio Critic

jmercer

Penultimate Amazing
J
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
12,334
Interesting proposal... can anyone see any holes in this proposed protocol? I can't.
 
Two sealed copies of identical discs will be opened and identically treated with Walker Audio Vivid, my standard procedure.
Click to expand...

This is a surface treatment, I don't like this part. Or if it has to be done, he should do it before the testers apply the chip treatment. Otherwise he can say the testers didnt treat the disks to be chipped as well.

Also the test needs to be double blind. He should be made to number the disks before they are chiped so that he can't claim the marks made by the testers affected the CD.

So:
He buys 20 cd's of his choice. (10 pairs).
He treats and numbers the cd's #1 and #2 of each.
He then checks each and verifies they are identical.
He provides the disks and an unused 10-charge chip to the testers.
He then places the chip on the player (so he can't) claim the testers didn't know how to use the chip.

Then he goes away for a bit.

A tester then randomly selects #1 or #2 from the first pair to be treated, pops it in the player and plays it for two seconds. As per the chip instructions.
The tester marks down which one was treated for that CD pair.
The tester repeats for pairs 2-10. removing the final CD and putting it back in its case.

His treatments are sealed away somewhere, thick envelope or something. And handed to the testers who will conduct the rest of the test. The "Treater(s)" can't be present for the rest of the testing.

The applicant is then reminded to remove the device from the player and put it back in its case.
The applicant is then given his 2-75 min sessions with a 1 hour break to identify the treated CD's

The once done, the usual post test formalities Recording the applicant saying its a fair test and that he could tell the difference in the CD's

Envelope opend and results compared. Apllicant given opportunity to explain any failure that occured.

:) something like that anyway. I am concerned that with the surface treatment the "Treater" could leave marks on the CD's indicating which were handled. Perhaps the tester would need to handle both CD's but only put 1 in the player to be treated.

O.

Edits for spelling.
 
Good summary, good points. Maybe they should treat all the disks with the surface treatment, but only "chip" the two?
 
Originally said by MICHAEL ANDA
All accessory products I use within my system are allowed to remain.
Click to expand...

Soppose one of those accessories detects the presense of the treatment and relays that data to a listener that knows what to listen for (a beep or click or hum)
 
1. What is the possibility that two "identical" CDs are not, in fact, indistiguishible from one another?

2. Should the test subject first listen to the untreated CDs and confirm that they are identical?

3. Should the listening pairs be randomly selected to include:

1 Treated & 1 un-treated
Same untreated played twice
Same treated played twice
 
Metullus said:
1. What is the possibility that two "identical" CDs are not, in fact, indistiguishible from one another?
Click to expand...

Unless one is damaged, theoretically they should be identical since they are digital in nature. Either the 1's and 0's are there or they're not. Loss of a few bits here and there wouldn't be detectible. Loss of multiple bits might be.

The more I think about it, the more I object to this surface treatment. It's possible that the surface treatment may alter the CD player's ability to read the digital pattern properly, distorting the sound.
 
jmercer said:
Unless one is damaged, theoretically they should be identical since they are digital in nature. Either the 1's and 0's are there or they're not. Loss of a few bits here and there wouldn't be detectible. Loss of multiple bits might be.

The more I think about it, the more I object to this surface treatment. It's possible that the surface treatment may alter the CD player's ability to read the digital pattern properly, distorting the sound.
Click to expand...

Reason I asked: For christmas we recieved two identical DVDs of The Return of the KIng. Fresh out of the box, they each had a defect, a momentary freezing of the video without affecting the audio. The defects, however are not in precisely the same place on the video tract. One occurs just as three characters leap from a ship, the other occurs perhaps 5 seconds later.

The effect is subtle, and easily missed if you are not paying attention. Both were missed by me, but instantly spotted and commented upon by my daughter. We can tell which disk we are watching by the timing of the defect.
 
Definitely a defect in the manufacturing process. DVD's contain a lot more information, so the loss of a few bits can be seen as either skips, freezes, or even artifacts (blots, rectangles, etc.) In CD's the loss of a few bits (for sound storage, not data) isn't usually detectible without equipment. If enough of them are missing, though, it could be perceptible.

Good example.
 
Seems good to me, except when he wants to listen to them as many times as he wants (months?). Oh, another thing this will be a double blind experiment, right?

Where/when can we expect to read the results? Im really interested, as I have been an "audiophileskeptic" in several audio forums.
 
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".
 
melba said:
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".
Click to expand...

Actually, it is to test whether the chipped disc differs from the unchipped disc. If there is a discernable difference (and I will happily concede JM's greater expertise in this regard) in audio quality to begin with, would that not have an effect on the experimental results? The subject will be comparing the audio quality of the two and determining that disc which he believes in each case is superior.
 
A few questions:

Why is this a valid test for the "$1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge"? Does the manufacturer claim paranormal effects for the device? (No.) Does the user claim paranormal power? (No.) Simply because James Randi called the device a fraud does not seem sufficient to include it.

The device manufacturer claims that the device improves the sound of a CD. This claim is untestable. The applicant claims that he can detect a difference in "chipped" CDs. That is a *very* different thing.

I can imagine any number of ways that the applicant's own equipment (which he requires for this test) could be rigged to surreptitously "mark" the CD in a way that would be audibly detectable. Remeber, his claim is to only distinguish between two CDs, as opposed to the manufacturer's claim to improve CD sound. Depending on the cleverness, electronics savvy, and skill of the applicant he could ...

... Rig a device inside his CD player that would wipe, spray, tick, scratch, burn, etc. the CD as it rotates during the "chipping" by detecting the presence of a RFID chip, magnet, or weight of the GSID on the player.
... Remote control a marking when he knew the "chipping" was occuring.

I would require the protocol incorporate another level. Two GSIDs are provided, one is used by JREF ref to "chip" 30 CDs (3 x number that should turn off the GSID). CD's need not be identical, simply that they "activate" the device. Now all the test CDs are run through the player with a GSID on top ... one is a fresh one, one the used one.

- Timothy
 
Good points and good suggestions, Timothy. :)

Hopefully Kramer's reading this thread - he usually does, but ya never know...
 
Timothy said:
I can imagine any number of ways that the applicant's own equipment (which he requires for this test) could be rigged to surreptitously "mark" the CD in a way that would be audibly detectable. Remeber, his claim is to only distinguish between two CDs, as opposed to the manufacturer's claim to improve CD sound. Depending on the cleverness, electronics savvy, and skill of the applicant he could ...

... Rig a device inside his CD player that would wipe, spray, tick, scratch, burn, etc. the CD as it rotates during the "chipping" by detecting the presence of a RFID chip, magnet, or weight of the GSID on the player.
... Remote control a marking when he knew the "chipping" was occuring.
Click to expand...
This shouldn't matter. The protocol should be double blind. Even if the applicant could rig something to change a CD, the applicant should be blinded from which CD was being given the treatment. If I knew that a magnet changed a CD's properties and had devices that could detect that, the protocol should be such that I am blinded to which CDs I might be affecting. Same thing with surface treatments. The applicant should be able to do whatever treatments he wants to the CDs, because he should be blinded from either which CDs are given the "magic" treatment.

The guy can provide his own CDs. They can already have whatever clicks or surface treatment or whatever. He can write directly on the things. But when it is time for the "magic" treatment, he leaves the room, the tester puts in the CD, then he can do whatever he wants and his equipment can do whatever, but he can't look at the CD. Then you play the CDs. He can do whatever he wants with the CDs. He cuold tell whether it was a CD that he manipulated, but he shoul dbe totally blind as to whether it was a CD given the "magic" treatment.
 
At such as I deem appropriate, I will leave my listening seat and place either marker atop the transport. At this time the chosen observors will open the transport door and compare the identifying mark on the disc with the identifying marker I have placed atop the transport. This process will continue until I have made 5 successful identifications within each given session.
Click to expand...
Of course the identifying mark should not be on the disc where it could be detected by an electronic device. The disc should have only an identifier as to which disk it is. A seperate list blinded to all of the test apparatus would record whether or not that disk was or was not treated. :)
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
The protocol should be double blind. Even if the applicant could rig something to change a CD, the applicant should be blinded from which CD was being given the treatment. If I knew that a magnet changed a CD's properties and had devices that could detect that, the protocol should be such that I am blinded to which CDs I might be affecting. Same thing with surface treatments. The applicant should be able to do whatever treatments he wants to the CDs, because he should be blinded from either which CDs are given the "magic" treatment.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of the protocol being double blind, it's a question of the presence of the GSID affecting the CD in a fraudulent way.

Example: All GSIDs may contain a RFID chip for tracking purposes. Surreptitious device inside applicant's CD player constructed to defraud JREF may detect the presence of the GSID on top of the player, and while player spins up, marks the playable side of the CD with a mark that produces an audible tick, click, degradation of sound, etc.

- Timothy
 
Timothy said:
It's not a question of the protocol being double blind, it's a question of the presence of the GSID affecting the CD in a fraudulent way.

Example: All GSIDs may contain a RFID chip for tracking purposes. Surreptitious device inside applicant's CD player constructed to defraud JREF may detect the presence of the GSID on top of the player, and while player spins up, marks the playable side of the CD with a mark that produces an audible tick, click, degradation of sound, etc.

- Timothy
Click to expand...
Good point. Really the test is whether or not a GSID affects sound quality of a CD. If the GSID can produce a "degradation of sound" then the GSID really does have an effect, which is the applicants claim. Of course, as you stated, it is possible that the GSID doesn't actually affect the CD, but rather affects a custom made device within the CD player which in turn affects the CD.

So it would, at least, still be a claim that the GSID chip on a CD player in some way affects a CDs sound quality. I'm not mechanically, elictrically, and engineringly qualified to say whether or not that is possible.

If the equipment (which is his own) has anyway of recording the presence of a GSID device and a way of getting thatinformation back to him in any way, then there is fraud here.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom