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

GSIC AUDIO

I linked to Sez's post in the skeptical events section. MRC is right. This is probably going to be uninteresting.

Still, the damn thing might work. And that not only means a million bucks for me, but a whole new bunch of science. Which is cool.

No, sorry. It's not.

It's wicked mother-(rule 8)ing pissah. If you're not from Boston, just understand that it doesn't get any better than that

Back on the other hand, it's a piece of plastic and I might just end up doing the same thing I did as a kid when I would wish really hard and then press my fingers to the bathroom mirror to see if I could go to Alice's Looking Glass Land.

So less than 24 hours and I'm still of two minds about this. One wants it to work and the other's shrugging and saying it might not and this is just a wank.

Of course, the third half says I should get back to my asnine work.
 
I'm kind of hoping you'd win, LA. Just to spite that trainman guy.

"Hey, trainman: You could have won that million if you got off your lazy duff and did a DBT, rather than make excuses!"
 
LA, I am from Boston.
It did seem like a miracle, but it was hard work, and perseverance
that won a championship. I hope you can have the courage and strength to go the distance. But there are those that will still be here to encourage you if you don't reach your goal, this time.
 
Disappointed, but not very surprised.

That's how I feel.

I've just fired an e-mail off to Kramer and he'll recieve the relevant documentation in the mail from SezMe.

Ah well. So it goes.

No million from Randi, but I did get my financial aid award today, so it's not a total loss in the money department for me. :D
 
Congratulations on getting your financial aid. What more can I say?

Oh ...

Have you insulted KRAMER lately? Better get to it.


Gayle
 
I look forward to reading your excuses for failing. ;)

On a serious note, I'll be interested to see what waves, if any, the test makes within the audiophile community.
 
ohms said:
I look forward to reading your excuses for failing. ;)

On a serious note, I'll be interested to see what waves, if any, the test makes within the audiophile community.
Click to expand...


Absolutely none. Since LA did not already have the experience of believing she could hear the difference, we are unable to draw any conclusions from her test. Maybe her ears just weren't good enough, or well trained enough to detect the difference in either a double blind or in a completely subjective listening situation. Until a strong proponent of the GSIC follows through with a legitimate DBT, we know no more than we did yesterday.
 
Gr8wight said:
Absolutely none. Since LA did not already have the experience of believing she could hear the difference, we are unable to draw any conclusions from her test. Maybe her ears just weren't good enough, or well trained enough to detect the difference in either a double blind or in a completely subjective listening situation. Until a strong proponent of the GSIC follows through with a legitimate DBT, we know no more than we did yesterday.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Im sorry, but this test is useless, both for audiophile believers and skeptics. :(
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Exactly. Im sorry, but this test is useless, both for audiophile believers and skeptics. :(
Click to expand...
No it isn't, at least not in a meta-analysis sort of way.

It has always been assumed that a nonbeliever would fail, but that assumption had never been tested before. Now it has. So in that regard, it provided new data (just not of the GSIC chip), therefore it was useful.

Besides, think of how useful it would have been if the results were different! That in itself made this test worthwhile.
 
Either the offer of a million dollars isn't enough to persuade the person who hears the difference to reveal that knowledge and win the money, or...the chip is worthless.

Your call.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Exactly. Im sorry, but this test is useless, both for audiophile believers and skeptics. :(
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree...but maybe not for the reason you think it is a failure.

We now have a simple, well-defined example of a claim being made, a protocol negotiated (with some attendant pain) and finally agreed upon, the baseline test conducted in accordance with the agreed upon protocol, and the results signed off by the claimant and the tester. All of the testing was video-taped from start to finish with additional stills taken throughout. When I have all of the supporting materials together, I will send them to Kramer.

Now Kramer has a very useful tool. When someone complains about how testing, protocols, etc. he can point to this well conducted case and say, "Here, if you can design, conduct and document your claim as well as this one, we have some reason to proceed."

Did LostAngeles make her way past the first step toward the mil. No. Did she make a valuable contribution to JREF and skepticism? In my opinion, yes. Here's to LA: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I'll post some pics and the documentation when I get all the material together.
 
Good job!

Of course it won't change the mind of any audiophools (nothing will), but we now have proof that an average listener can't hear any difference, not even for a million dollars, and that can't be good for their business.

Hans
 
I just want to know one thing about the test. Did she get past the non-blind baseline first test? And if so, did she honestly hear (or believe she heard) a difference?

That could tell us a lot about why this thing doesn't just go away in the face of common sense.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Good job!

Of course it won't change the mind of any audiophools (nothing will), but we now have proof that an average listener can't hear any difference, not even for a million dollars, and that can't be good for their business.

Hans
Click to expand...
Sorry Hans, but I disagree. Who said LostAngeles is an "average listener"? We have evidence that LostAngeles can't hear any difference, not even for a milion dollar.
 
Donks said:
Sorry Hans, but I disagree. Who said LostAngeles is an "average listener"? We have evidence that LostAngeles can't hear any difference, not even for a milion dollar.
Click to expand...

That would be me.

...propose to test the claim that the GSIC (Golden Intelligent Sound Chip) will improve the audio quality of cd's, such that an average listener will be able to notice.
...
Click to expand...

Once more around the mulberry bush, we go.

If a device will only work for you if you are an, "audiophile," or a Star Trek fan, or twenty-six years, fifteen days old, or if you have a burn scar from a KFC biscuit tray on your arm, then it's very likely a load of crap. If the GSIC did what it has been claimed to do, then I should have heard something and in the end, it turned out that all I was hearing was hope.

The treated disc, by coin flip, ended up being disc B. When I listend to B, I sincerely thought I was hearing a difference. However when it got to the drums, I noticed that there was none and there wasn't any on the strings either. I wasn't looking for a difference that would be comparable to a T.V. and THX system. I was looking for any. I had them go back to the beginning of the A disc and listened again just to reconfirm that no, there was no actual difference. One of the observers commented that whatever disc was being heard at the time sounded better than the other one that was just heard. Another commented that there was still hissing.

The GSIC was accompanied by clams that it was absolutely amazing. "The difference is astounding and very much there," it was said. Maybe now it just doesn't work on drums and string instruments, but only brass instruments, woodwind instruments, and voices? Hell.

If someone here, who's an audiophile, would like to the test again, by all means, go right on ahead. You just can't have the chip we used for the baseline.

It's in pieces. :D
 
LostAngeles said:
That would be me.
Click to expand...
Ok then, how did you arrive at the determination that you are an average listener? How did you even decide what an average listener is? Did somebody perform a study and then compare your listening range to the average? The conclusion that this test proved that the average listener can't hear any difference (as stated by Hans) requires a study done with a sample size larger than 1. To me this test was valuable in that it shows that the obstacles to testing are not on the part of JREF, as is typically claimed, but in the part of the claimants themselves. When a claimant who's actually willing to be tested under proper conditions, such as yourself, arises then there are no obstacles to testing.
 
Donks said:
Ok then, how did you arrive at the determination that you are an average listener? How did you even decide what an average listener is? Did somebody perform a study and then compare your listening range to the average? The conclusion that this test proved that the average listener can't hear any difference (as stated by Hans) requires a study done with a sample size larger than 1. To me this test was valuable in that it shows that the obstacles to testing are not on the part of JREF, as is typically claimed, but in the part of the claimants themselves. When a claimant who's actually willing to be tested under proper conditions, such as yourself, arises then there are no obstacles to testing.
Click to expand...

Because all hearing tests done over my life time have had me at "normal" hearing? Never had a hearing problem?

Do you need Nix or does the completion of the baseline require me to take a hearing test, people?

Edit: Offer only good for Randi, Kramer, et al. Everyone else gets the most awesome excuse I can think of.
 
For that matter, how do we know that the specific chip being tested wasn't defective? Or the CDs? Or the CD player? Or that LA's life wasn't threatened to force her to lie and claim that she didn't hear a difference? Or that aliens didn't somehow interfere?

A true scientific test would require sorting out a few of the above issues, and a hearing test would certainly be in order.

In short, all scientific proofs are provisional. Lacking a hearing test, and using only 1 chip, means this test is more provisional than most. But, given the (self) report of passing hearing tests, and no one mentioning having trouble communicating with LA during the test because she kept mishearing what was being said, we can certainly conclude that we have strong, though not overwhelming evidence, that the chip is useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom