GSIC AUDIO

[webfusion]

Stick with the 'Howard Protocol' as much as possible

Do you know what a Sharpie like that would cost?!

I have made a modest addition to your account, LA, and urge other skeppers to follow and help build-up the LostAngeles AUDIO Challenge contingency bankroll.

plumepple AT hotmail.com (PayPal account)

The very first thing is to get the GSIC-30 chip which will form the basis for your test. It costs $40 (plus S&H).

Once you have this package delivered, it will be the first step towards this entire thing happening. It will become "real" to you and not just a theoretical exercise in "what if" -----

Best of luck, and thanks for being so cheerful and charming in this entire endeavor.

------ signed, "you know who" -------

 

[stormer]

Part of a protocol

Sorry, but I think LA is not qualified to take the test of the GSIC. Supposing the protocol is perfect, LA not being to be able to detect the difference means nothing. She never claimed she could anyway. This test has to be done with someone who claims thay can hear the difference.

Summary of protocol
----
13 CDs required
1 active GSIC device
Applicant - App
Testers - T1 and T2
Observers for App - O1 and O2 (O1 remains with T1, O2 with T2)

13 CD are opened in front of the App. App can do whatever non-GSIC thing they want to the CDs.
1 CD, at random from the pile of 12, is inserted into the CD player by T1, and the disk is GSICed by App. App confirmes that he can hear the difference.
This CD becomes the reference CD, which App keeps.

From this point onwards, App may not handle or look at the remaning CDs.
T1 inserts a CD from the remaining 12, into the player. The amplifier sound is turned OFF.
App applies the GSIC to the CD. App then confirmes the treatment by listening ONLY to Track 10 of the CD.
T1 removes the CD an places it into a "blue" box.
T1 continues this for 5 CDs, all put into the "blue" box, for a total of 6 GSICed CDs.
App can confirm the un-GSICed CDs by also listening to Track 10 of the CDs. These CDs are put into a "red" box.
T1 Records the mapping of which box is "GSICed CDs" and which is not.

At any point after this, App MAY NOT play Track 10 of any CD. Playing Track 10 will immediately invalidate the test and cause App to fail. App may determine the status of GSIC treatment only by listening to Track 1 to Track 9.

T1 sends the boxes to T2 for labelling.
T2 does not know the condition of the CDs in the boxes. (More importantly, neither does O2 - is there such a thing as Triple Blind? )

---- End of Part 1

I know it is a bit convoluted, but this takes care of the concerns of WF from the other test that did not happen. It also protects JREF from O1 and O2 from playing a part. Thay are just observers, with the Applicant's interests at heart.

Part 2 will be the actual test. Some of the test procedures are well documented and I think they will work. I am only not sure of getting the odds of 1 to 1000 for 12 disks.

But I was thinking about Part 2....
----
T2 takes a CD from "blue" box. T2 throws a 12 sided die and labels the CD with the number shown. T2 records this number.
T2 continues till all the CDs in the "blue" box are labelled and continues to the "red" box, until all CDs have an individual number.
T2 takes CD1 and CD2 and gives it to T1.
T1 plays CD1 and CD2 for App. T1 may may play the reference CD should App require it.
App is required to note if CD1 is GSICed (or not) and if CD2 is GSICed (or not).
This test continues till all CDs are played in pairs.
When all 12 CDs are played, T1 and T2 determine which of the CDs were GSICed or not and this is compared with the list made by App.
12 positive, and the Applicant becomes a Claimant.
----
If App can tell the difference between GSICed or not, then I think saying "This CD has NOT been GSICed" is a valid positive, just as "This disk HAS been GSICed".

I think this will make the odds greater than 1 in 1000 for JREF, and also addresses all the concerns of WF, should his application be reviewed.

Just for the record, I want to believe. I want to believe that I can wish someone well, that if people pray for me, it makes things better.

 

[LostAngeles]

Re: Part of a protocol

Sorry, but I think LA is not qualified to take the test of the GSIC. Supposing the protocol is perfect, LA not being to be able to detect the difference means nothing. She never claimed she could anyway. This test has to be done with someone who claims thay can hear the difference.

Summary of protocol
----
13 CDs required
1 active GSIC device
Applicant - App
Testers - T1 and T2
Observers for App - O1 and O2 (O1 remains with T1, O2 with T2)

13 CD are opened in front of the App. App can do whatever non-GSIC thing they want to the CDs.
1 CD, at random from the pile of 12, is inserted into the CD player by T1, and the disk is GSICed by App. App confirmes that he can hear the difference.
This CD becomes the reference CD, which App keeps.

From this point onwards, App may not handle or look at the remaning CDs.
T1 inserts a CD from the remaining 12, into the player. The amplifier sound is turned OFF.
App applies the GSIC to the CD. App then confirmes the treatment by listening ONLY to Track 10 of the CD.
T1 removes the CD an places it into a "blue" box.
T1 continues this for 5 CDs, all put into the "blue" box, for a total of 6 GSICed CDs.
App can confirm the un-GSICed CDs by also listening to Track 10 of the CDs. These CDs are put into a "red" box.
T1 Records the mapping of which box is "GSICed CDs" and which is not.

At any point after this, App MAY NOT play Track 10 of any CD. Playing Track 10 will immediately invalidate the test and cause App to fail. App may determine the status of GSIC treatment only by listening to Track 1 to Track 9.

T1 sends the boxes to T2 for labelling.
T2 does not know the condition of the CDs in the boxes. (More importantly, neither does O2 - is there such a thing as Triple Blind? )

---- End of Part 1

I know it is a bit convoluted, but this takes care of the concerns of WF from the other test that did not happen. It also protects JREF from O1 and O2 from playing a part. Thay are just observers, with the Applicant's interests at heart.

Part 2 will be the actual test. Some of the test procedures are well documented and I think they will work. I am only not sure of getting the odds of 1 to 1000 for 12 disks.

But I was thinking about Part 2....
----
T2 takes a CD from "blue" box. T2 throws a 12 sided die and labels the CD with the number shown. T2 records this number.
T2 continues till all the CDs in the "blue" box are labelled and continues to the "red" box, until all CDs have an individual number.
T2 takes CD1 and CD2 and gives it to T1.
T1 plays CD1 and CD2 for App. T1 may may play the reference CD should App require it.
App is required to note if CD1 is GSICed (or not) and if CD2 is GSICed (or not).
This test continues till all CDs are played in pairs.
When all 12 CDs are played, T1 and T2 determine which of the CDs were GSICed or not and this is compared with the list made by App.
12 positive, and the Applicant becomes a Claimant.
----
If App can tell the difference between GSICed or not, then I think saying "This CD has NOT been GSICed" is a valid positive, just as "This disk HAS been GSICed".

I think this will make the odds greater than 1 in 1000 for JREF, and also addresses all the concerns of WF, should his application be reviewed.

Just for the record, I want to believe. I want to believe that I can wish someone well, that if people pray for me, it makes things better.

No. I make a claim that the GSIC makes a difference so that I can hear it. The subject of the claim is the GSIC itself, hence the two applicants.

Please read the thread next time. I think we've addressed this, if not in this one, then in the one I linked on page 1.

 

[stormer]

Re: Re: Part of a protocol

Please read the thread next time. I think we've addressed this, if not in this one, then in the one I linked on page 1.

LA, I have read ALL the threads over the last 3 weeks. Well, almost all of them except PT's posts because they are soooo long.

I did not mean to dis-respect at all.

Let's say I am the most critical thinker/smartest/logical/whatever in the world, I am just putting forward the opinion that it is impossible to test the GSIC, since it works on "magic" (same as earlier in this thread)

And if I am just a dumb ass, then I still have my opinion, which I am putting forward.

I am entiltled to my opinion, am I not?

You can test the person who says they can hear the difference, and if that is a positive, then you may infer that "magic" exists which the GSIC does.

In WF's case, I think a protocol could be devised to to prove/dis-prove a claim. In your application, I think it cannot be done. That's all I'm saying.

 

[jmercer]

Surely this thing can sharpen razor blades, and cure your asthma too.

Oh my gawd, are you suggesting that the dot contains a homeopathic quantum pyramid?

 

[Moose]

Re: Re: Re: Part of a protocol

I did not mean to dis-respect at all.

Easy Tex. Nobody's suggesting you were, but LA's right, this is old ground. I don't see much point in stampeding the herd across it yet another time.

Let's just work on getting the protocol locked down for now. We can argue about whether or not the test was meaningful while LostAngeles is counting her million.

Ultimately, Randi will make the final call as to whether or not this exercise will happen or not.

 

[webfusion]

Quick response

Sorry, but I think LA is not qualified to take the test of the GSIC. Supposing the protocol is perfect, LA not being to be able to detect the difference means nothing. She never claimed she could anyway. This test has to be done with someone who claims thay can hear the difference.

Welcome to the discussion.

General Electric is the manufacturer of a toaster oven.
They distribute it for sale at WalMart.
My wife buys it. She has never used a toaster oven before in her life, and thinks the thing is dumb, and is convinced that it will not really toast as efficiently as our two-slice pop-up toaster.

After following the instructions, we both agree that the toaster oven is a vast improvement on the making of toast in our home.

How is the GSIC different from this example?
I want to buy a GSIC*, but I will reconsider spending my money on it should LostAngeles determine she cannot hear a difference.
I consider her to be the typical average consumer, and her doing the GSIC test is equal to that of my wife putting toast into the oven. If my wife (who was saying the whole idea of spending $40 for a new-fangled machine to do toast was dumb, and our current two-slice model was fine) had been unable to detect a vast difference in toast quality after ONE trial, then the new G-E machine would have gone back to WalMart, immediately.



* I'm don't really, but I am saying this as an example of the typical Joe/Jane who believes all the promotional material of Golden Sound and is ready to part with his/her hard-earned dinero.

 

[stormer]

But again, what does it prove?

Thanks webfusion, I understand what you are trying to tell me. And so sorry to be stampeding the cattle again (I like that, moose )

The GSIC has been tested physically, and it shows nothing. The conclusion is "it doesn't work". Fair enough.

If someone can tell when the GSIC was applied, then it is a paranormal claim. LA does not claim paranormal ability. I know, I know, we are now testing the GSIC, not the person... We have already tested the device with a bit-by-bit comparison. Isn't that science enough?

So now one of two things happen:
1. LA does it!
Wow, the GSIC is paranormal! Oops, someone will be complaining the JREF denied him the chance at the prize. (Doesn't matter if it is true or not, mind you)
2. LA doesn't do it.
Well, she never said she could, so all this time wasted.

In Kramer starting this thread, I saw him trying to get a protocol that no one could argue with. And although I like moose's protocol (especially "they can eat the CD if that is what it takes") any protocol that uses a non-believer will never satisfy a believer.

I think it's worth saying again : Even if WF took a test and did not notice a difference, it would only prove that he could not detect the effect of the GSIC during that test, not that the GSIC did not work. We'd be able to debunk WF's claim though.

Now, if he took the test and passed, then that would be another story......

 

[BPSCG]

Alternately, the treaters set them up in a multidisc player. Unfortunately, the kind of mutlidisc player we'd need for this would be pretty big.

Not really. I recently bought a used Sony CD jukebox on eBay for fifty bucks. Holds 200 CD's, and measures about 17 inches square by about 7 inches high.

You might want to consider using one of these things. That way, you could use the following protocol, which eliminates a lot of the disc handling issues:

• Mark the disks sequentially, one through ten.
• GSIC-treat discs randomly, as specified elsewhere here.
• Seal a written record of which numbered discs have been treated ("1 - treated, 2 - treated, 3 - untreated... 10 - untreated").
• Load the numbered disks into the numbered slots in the jukebox all at once, in accordance with their sequence number (disc one - slot one, disc 2 - slot 2, etc.).
• Shut the jukebox access door and duct-tape it shut to prevent tampering.
• Cover the rest of the front of the machine with duct tape except for the display that shows which numbered slot is currently being played, as well as the playback controls.
• LA could then go back and forth between CD's as much as she wants without annoying anyone, and write down her guesses ("1 - untreated, 2 - untreated, 3 - treated... 10 - treated"). You'd need no more than one observer, to confirm that she didn't tamper with the machine; of course, a video would supplement that observer. Alternatively, LA could be required to use the jukebox's remote, to prevent her from actually touching the machine.
• When she's done, open the machine, and confirm that the discs' locations were not tampered with (i.e., disc 1 is still in slot 1, etc.).
• Compare LA's written responses with the previously sealed actual record of which discs were treated.

With regard to your complaint that the CD jukebox would be pretty big: do you have any idea how big a pile of nearly 200 CD jewel cases is? Mrs. BPSCG and I emptied an entire bookcase, salvaging only a small pile of album booklets; the jewel cases are going into the trash, and the bookcase is now yard sale fodder. And the CD's are all in a small box about 17 inches square by about 7 inches high.

 

[LostAngeles]

Not really. I recently bought a used Sony CD jukebox on eBay for fifty bucks. Holds 200 CD's, and measures about 17 inches square by about 7 inches high.

You might want to consider using one of these things. That way, you could use the following protocol, which eliminates a lot of the disc handling issues:

• Mark the disks sequentially, one through ten.
• GSIC-treat discs randomly, as specified elsewhere here.
• Seal a written record of which numbered discs have been treated ("1 - treated, 2 - treated, 3 - untreated... 10 - untreated").
• Load the numbered disks into the numbered slots in the jukebox all at once, in accordance with their sequence number (disc one - slot one, disc 2 - slot 2, etc.).
• Shut the jukebox access door and duct-tape it shut to prevent tampering.
• Cover the rest of the front of the machine with duct tape except for the display that shows which numbered slot is currently being played, as well as the playback controls.
• LA could then go back and forth between CD's as much as she wants without annoying anyone, and write down her guesses ("1 - untreated, 2 - untreated, 3 - treated... 10 - treated"). You'd need no more than one observer, to confirm that she didn't tamper with the machine; of course, a video would supplement that observer. Alternatively, LA could be required to use the jukebox's remote, to prevent her from actually touching the machine.
• When she's done, open the machine, and confirm that the discs' locations were not tampered with (i.e., disc 1 is still in slot 1, etc.).
• Compare LA's written responses with the previously sealed actual record of which discs were treated.

With regard to your complaint that the CD jukebox would be pretty big: do you have any idea how big a pile of nearly 200 CD jewel cases is? Mrs. BPSCG and I emptied an entire bookcase, salvaging only a small pile of album booklets; the jewel cases are going into the trash, and the bookcase is now yard sale fodder. And the CD's are all in a small box about 17 inches square by about 7 inches high.

You know, if we can find one of those at a price like that it would be really, really good. As in "wicked f***ing pissah."

 

[BPSCG]

You know, if we can find one of those at a price like that it would be really, really good. As in "wicked f***ing pissah."

Couldn't give you a direct link, but right now, eBay has 194 multi-disc (10+ CDs) changers. To get there, from www.ebay.com, click Consumer Electronics/CD Players and Recorders/Multi-Disc Players/10+ Disc Jukeboxes.

Sort in ascending order of auction expiration. I would try to find something in the L.A. area so you could arrange to meet the seller and pick it up, rather than commend it to the tender mercies of the U.S. Postal Service. That's what I did - worked very well; seller was glad not to have to pack it and ship it.

 

[webfusion]

Watch out, protocols in motion

stormer insists---"If someone can tell when the GSIC was applied, then it is a paranormal claim."

The whole concept of a consumer device such as this is that everyone who buys it will be able to discern a difference and have their CD collection improved by it.

There is nothing paranormal about this chip working the way it is advertised to work and a toaster oven working the way it is advertised to work. The GSIC promises to give any user better sound quality. The toaster oven promises to brown any user's bread to a nice crisp.

What we suspect is that the chip has no function at all,
and is nothing more than a device designed to separate you from your money.

Even you, Joe Shmoe, should you decide to order a GSIC, can be expected to get the advertised results in your home. Have you ordered one? Why not?

The basis for a highly-ordered and observed (listening) test is to plainly illustrate the normal declared function.
Same as if I expect to get perfect toast from a toaster oven. If I do not, something is wrong, right?

We skeptics assume the GSIC is BUNK, and this single test is going to be suffucient for proving our suspicions are correct (or not).

 

[LostAngeles]

Anyone looking to donate via Paypal, don't do it by credit card please, otherwise I have to upgrade, and Paypal starts getting a cut of the funds.

If you really do want to donate to this, once we have the protocol hammered out and we set a date, I'll let you know where to send an Amazon thingy or something. I don't know if I can return an Amazon g.c. to a giver as easily as I can return money on Paypal.

So while my boyfriend looks for the video of the sensei hitting the gakusei, let me rehash current protocol propositions.

Moose Protocol:
You need eleven bit-by-bit identical disks. One of these disks is designated (and identified) as the control and is guaranteed to not have been treated.

The other ten are either treated or not treated by a coin toss, and recorded by paper in a sealed envelope and continuous video tape.

The treatment machine is borrowed/provided by JREF, set once prior to the initial treatment, and not adjusted until the treatment is done.

This is done entirely out of sight of the applicant.

Once this is done, all "treaters" leave the area. One neutral, who was not present for the treatment, enters and transports the CDs to the room where the applicant awaits with their preferred equipment setup. (This can include packaging and mailing, in terms of a remote test.)

The applicant then receives all eleven CDs, and determines by any means they desire which CDs have been treated and which have not.

ABX/Piano Teacher protocol:
We have three copies of the same CD. One(A or B) is treated out of my sight, one(B or A) is not, the last's(X's) status is determined by coin toss. There will be sixteen on these triplets. The status of all sixteen As, Bs, and Xs will be recorded and placed into a sealed envelope. Rest of the procedure follows the same as Moose's.

BPS(C)G protocol:
# Mark the disks sequentially, one through ten.
# GSIC-treat discs randomly, as specified elsewhere here.
# Seal a written record of which numbered discs have been treated ("1 - treated, 2 - treated, 3 - untreated... 10 - untreated").
# Load the numbered disks into the numbered slots in the jukebox all at once, in accordance with their sequence number (disc one - slot one, disc 2 - slot 2, etc.).
# Shut the jukebox access door and duct-tape it shut to prevent tampering.
# Cover the rest of the front of the machine with duct tape except for the display that shows which numbered slot is currently being played, as well as the playback controls.
# LA could then go back and forth between CD's as much as she wants without annoying anyone, and write down her guesses ("1 - untreated, 2 - untreated, 3 - treated... 10 - treated"). You'd need no more than one observer, to confirm that she didn't tamper with the machine; of course, a video would supplement that observer. Alternatively, LA could be required to use the jukebox's remote, to prevent her from actually touching the machine.
# When she's done, open the machine, and confirm that the discs' locations were not tampered with (i.e., disc 1 is still in slot 1, etc.).
# Compare LA's written responses with the previously sealed actual record of which discs were treated.

 

[LostAngeles]

Stepping back and looking at all three of these, I see no reason why we can't try and merge them into one big happy MooseABXPianoTeacherBPS(C)G protocol.

The hinging point on a definite protocol here seems to be if the discs will all be the same disc or different. I'd go for different, unless we pick out a really awesome CD. Like William Hung.

(kidding!)

 

[stormer]

One last try

-snip-
There is nothing paranormal about this chip working the way it is advertised to work and a toaster oven working the way it is advertised to work. The GSIC promises to give any user better sound quality. The toaster oven promises to brown any user's bread to a nice crisp.
-snip-

I don't want to keep on this as it is going to look like I am really thick/obnoxious.

To follow your analogy above webfusion, but how do you measure "sounds better"?

I do not sell toaster ovens, since the results can be measured. I will sell a shoe box, er, I mean a Golden Eats Intelligent Box (GEIB) that will realign the molecular bonding of the particulates in the bread in 2 seconds. You bread will now taste better, toast better, and you will feel better whenever you eat bread treated by GEIB!

How do you measure "tastes better"?

We'd test the GEIB by looking at it, taking it apart, determining that it uses no power, the bread comes out exactly the same as it went in. We draw the conclusion "the GEIB does not work". Finished. End of story.

Suddenly, Fedwell : "I can taste the difference of bread treated by the GEIB!! And I can prove it through simple taste tests too. You lie!"

Once again I assert that we cannot test the GSIC through listening tests. It has been tested, and the conclusion is "it does not work"

We can test WF's claim though. (But not LA, as she did not make the claim)

 

[BPSCG]

So while my boyfriend looks for the video of the sensei hitting the gakusei, let me rehash current protocol propositions.

I hope your BF isn't a forum member. Else, after reading...

The sooner we do, the sooner I get that hand-oiled Nubian prince.

...he might decide to abscond with the funds.




You'd better make sure that if you win, he gets a hand-oiled Nubian princess.



Or a hand-waxed Lamborghini Countach...

 

[Hitch]

Re: One last try

I don't want to keep on this as it is going to look like I am really thick/obnoxious.

To follow your analogy above webfusion, but how do you measure "sounds better"?

I think it is the belief of most skeptics here that the GSIC can't do ANYTHING to a CD. So we'll accept the word of a claimant that it "sounds better" if they can reliably demonstrate an ability to audibly discern whether the GSIC treatment has been done to a CD simply by listening to it.

That's the claim. Try to keep the protocols as simple as possible and focused on that. Once you get into talking about the need to be in the proper state of mind to appreciate the subtle nuances of the music involved we end up waiting months for the conditions to be perfect. Just keep it at hearing any difference at all.

 

[Moose]

Exactly. Sounds "better" is a subjective claim. Sounds "different" is an objective claim, easily within the reach of double blind testing, and plenty sufficient for our purposes.

Once (or rather, "if") GSIC actually demonstrates an effect under proper testing, we'll be content to leave the value judgements to the clients and reviewers while LostAngeles takes us all out for pizza.

 

[jmercer]

It's not a belief. It was tested at the very same audiophile forum Wellfed wrote his now-infamous review at. One disk was treated. One was not.

The disks were compared on a bit by bit basis. No difference between the two disks.

Setting aside that simple proof, it's physically impossible for the chip to enhance the sound on a CD - because there is no sound!. It's a binary encoded stream of data that - when read by the proper equipment - is processed into sound.

You cannot enhance the content of a bit. It's either a one or a zero. Period.

The only way to change the quality of sound on a CD is to record the original music at the time of mastering with a different sampling rate. The more frequent the sampling, the better the sound - and the more bits on the CD. The industry has settled on a 44 khz sampling rate because the additional data that would be captured by a higher sampling rate would not make any detectible difference in sound to the listener.

Chip or no chip, you cannot add bits to the CD once it's created, and you certainly can't change the content of a bit. (CDROM=Compact Disk Read Only Memory, as in READ ONLY - NO WRITING POSSIBLE.)

What Wellfed stated is impossible, and I'm sure that neither Randi nor Kramer ever even felt that the million was in the slightest bit of danger at all.

 

[LostAngeles]

I hope your BF isn't a forum member. Else, after reading... ...he might decide to abscond with the funds.




You'd better make sure that if you win, he gets a hand-oiled Nubian princess.



Or a hand-waxed Lamborghini Countach...

No,no. He's not. Nor can he absoncd with the funds. While the community at large may recognize the implicit act of marriage behind accidently saving on each other's memory cards, the government does not.