MICHAEL ANDA, Audio Critic

[KRAMER]

This latest paranormal claim is very exciting.

Randi has recently written a lot in his weekly commentary about the "GSIC" chip, which allegedly improves the sound quality of a CD. One audio reviewer in particular was championing the effects of this chip with great enthusiasm.

That same reviewer has just applied for the Challenge...

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

Dear Mr. Kramer,

Enclosed is my application to have my claim tested under the Million Dollar Challenge offered by the JREF. I submit that I am able to discern the effectiveness of a device called the Golden Sound Intelligent Chip (hereafter refered to as "GSIC"). This device was refered to as a "MAJOR SWINDLE IN OPERATION" and as a "FRAUD" in a recent www.randi.org newsletter. My review of this device at Audio Asylum is also a topic of discussion at the www.randi.org discussion site where I am ridiculed for claiming to hear an effect using the GSIC. The claim to be tested under your Challenge is my ability to detect a difference between a GSIC-treated disc from a non-treated disc through simple listening tests. I do not claim to possess sufficient technical knowledge to explain how this product can alter Compact Audio Discs, nor can I support the claims of the manufacturer, US Distributor or GSIC dealers, I only claim that I can detect a difference using source material with which I am familiar in the context of my own primary sound system. I subjectively find this difference to be pleasing and worth the cost of treatment.

I propose that if I positively identify 10 times - without error - whether a given disc is treated or untreated within the terms of a mutually agreed upon test protocol, I will have successfully proven my ability in this regard. If I make ten successful identifications I consider this to be a positive result and entitlement to the $1,000,000 USD prize money. If I fail with even one of my identifications, prior to ten successful identifications, the results of this test will be deemed to be negative and I will have no claim to the prize money.

Sincerely, Michael Anda

PROPOSED TESTING PROTOCOL

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.

I will remain in my listening seat or go to another room, at my discretion, while discs are being swapped. I will leave it to the designated disc swapper(s) to conceal the identity of the discs being swapped from my view. Reasonable precautions are expected to avoid altering either disc in the swapping process; including, but not limited to, smudges and scratches.

Methods:

Two sealed copies of identical discs will be opened and identically treated with Walker Audio Vivid, my standard procedure.

One of these discs will be treated with a GSIC application in accordance with GSIC instructions.

Both discs are to be played in their entirety prior to the listening tests.

I will use two markers, one identified with the letter T to indicate TREATED and the other identified with the letter N to indicate NOT TREATED.

I propose two seperate 75 minute listening sessions at which times I will atytempt to successfully distinguish the two discs from one another a totasl of 5 times at each session. I ask for a one hour break between sessions. System will remain powered ON during this intermission.

At my instruction, the discs will be swapped with one another as many times as I choose before I opt to identify the treated/non-treated status of the disc within the transport. 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. I will have failed the test if at any time during either session my identification marker does not match the identifying letter of the disc in the transport at the time I make the identification.

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

Needless to say, our plan is to make every effort to meet as many of this applicant's protocol requirements as we possibly can, without surrendering any provisions that would insure against fraud. Our goal is to make things as easy as possible for him. This is our goal with all applicants, of course.

We're VERY anxious to conduct this test. The application has been accepted and we will soon emnark upon the task of nailing down the test protocol. Let's hope things go smoothly, and that we see a test of this claim at the earliest convenience for all those involved.

 

[KRAMER]

Protocol Design

Mr. Anda is the kind of applicant we love; sensible, courteous, inquiring, truth-seeking. He seems the type that will simply admit that he's wrong, should he fail the test.

I spoke with Mr. Anda and suggested that he join the forum and share his comments on his claim and protocol with forum members. He did so immediately.

Here is the most recent email from him, and my response, which contains comments from Randi:

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

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 seems 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

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

Dear Michael,

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. No problem.
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.

Also, if you are listening to an entire cd during each procedure, we are concerned about the length of the test. Is it not possible to chose CD's that are NOT "full-length", such as "EP" length?
Obviously a 15 minute Bjork "cd-single" will do better than Pink Floyd's THE WALL.

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, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

More...

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

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. Of course.

#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.

 

[KRAMER]

And more...

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

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

Hello Michael,
I've noticed that in the forum you state that you claim to be able to discern a difference in sound, and NOT an improvement, as the manufacturers and marketers profess. Interesting, but, no matter. It doesn't concern us.

Also of no matter is the Walker Vivid issue. Treat the discs as you like.

Do you have a solid-state system or a tube system? A solid state system would require no "warm-up", right?

If the test can be conducted in 2 or 3 hours instead of 2 or 3 days (or even 6-8 hours), we'd like to do that. This is our main concern regarding this matter. Your request cannot hurt. You are right about that. But it would most likely extend the length of the test past what is necessary in proving your claim. We just want to keep things simple.

And finally, Michael, why would you resist the notion of doing a simple DBT prior to the JREF test? Just curious.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

Hmmm...

Well, I'm losing my confidence regarding how quickly this claim will be tested.

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

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

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

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

 

[KRAMER]

Oh well...

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

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

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

 

[KRAMER]

July...

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

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

July would be a good time to reach me.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

On The FORUM....

This applicant has joined the JREF forum and engaged members in a lively discussion regarding his claim and proposed protocol.

Go to the Challenge section to see the discussion in its entirety.

 

[KRAMER]

We Won't Get Fooled Again

I spoke with Mr. Anda this morning. It was a very nice chat. He informed me that June would be fine, and asked if we could resume protocol negotiations now. I said YES, and sent him the following email:

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

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

This email also included the contact data for our investigator in his basic area, which I will not include here.

Within minutes I received the aforementioned protocol, along with the following note:

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, 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 volunteers 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

 

[KRAMER]

Protocol Approval !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Based on many aspects of what has taken place in the last 48 hours on the forum, including a host of assumptions and accusations from both sides, I have come to the conclusion that if anyone can save this claim from becoming just another that never saw testing, it has to be the JREF. Henceforth...

I have changed my position on when to submit the protocol to Randi. It was done today. As Mr. Anda seemed to have a rising degree of anxiety over the fact that a protocol was not yet in place for the test, and over my refusal to submit one to Randi until he was ready to be tested, I thought it the right thing to do.

Randi has officially approved the following protocol (known in the forum as the "Steven Howard Protocol") without amendment or changes of any kind. It appears here just as it was submitted via email by Mr. Anda.

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

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.

 

[KRAMER]

Neverland

MY attempts to move things forward have failed. I will not waste my time re-posting the mudslinging that's taken place in the forum over this claim.

Go to the CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS thread for this applicant if you wish to view the specifics.

 

[KRAMER]

Safe Deposit Box?

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 stinking 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

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

Please just submit your revised protocol.

You can expect to have this safe 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]

The clock is definitely ticking now -

Kramer,

You just posted a response on the 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, 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

 

[KRAMER]

It never ends...

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

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

The Challenge rules and 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]

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

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

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.

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

p.p.s. The ONLY thing I'll respond to from this point forward is a protocol proposal.

-Kramer, JREF

 

[KRAMER]

A 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,

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

 

[KRAMER]

This will go on Forever, and Ever, and Ever...

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 (edited by tim @ Kramer's request, 15.01 BST, 04/16/05). After April 30th it will become my only phone number. I expect this number to remain private of course.

Michael

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

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

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]

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.

 

[KRAMER]

Getting Somewhere?

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.

Please submit a revised protocol that reflects our most recent negotiations and I will present it to Randi.

 

[KRAMER]

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

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.

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.