 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.116.189.130
In Reply to: GSIC observation and query... posted by Wellfed on June 16, 2005 at 22:10:18:
The beauty of digital audio, is that you can measure the signal accurately. Using a real-time analyzer; I no longer have access to one, it would be simple to compare the digital streams of a treated disc and a disc without this treatment. So if someone REALLY wants to determine if this chip really works, there's no stopping them. So lets go all you audio reviewers, get your magazine to do the test.
Remember its still Science and Engineering not Alchemy.
Follow Ups:
The real test is listening, preferrably to something you are familiar with on a system you are familiar with.Have a nice day
.
nope
I guess then that when jneutron claimed that certain aspects of you 'explanation' contained errors and that those very errors, metaphorically speaking, shot holes into you hull and sank you ship, that you were just toying with him and simply resisted answering the challenge to fustrate him. You're such a devil!Anyway the link is the launch point to the amusing exchange is provided below.
JNeutron talks a good game, but has not done his homework (as usual)... I like that you hold him up on a pedestal, however...:-)
Hmmmm?Your so called "paper" falls apart upon inspection.
A laser reflecting off a diffuse surface is no longer a gaussian profile, coherent source...it is simply monochromatic light.
Paper...what a laugh...
Submit it to APS..or, AES, or IEEE...or even physica..
I would love to see the responses...
Cheers, John
He claimed you made certain errors. I believe you acknowledged same.He claimed that these errors invalidated the conclusions of the 'explanation'. On this claim I beleive you were silent.
That about sums it up.
A lot of people claim a lot of things, doesn't make them true. This is not a forum for peer review. I stand by my paper.
.
nope
'a lot of people claim a lot of things, doesn't make them true. this is not a forum for peer review. i stand by my paper'never a truer word said. you claim a lot of things none of which are true. you then stand by them. its a mad mad mad mad world.
PAR
if the digital data stream is unaffected by the chip then any difference heard is imaginary or from another source. afaik nobody has yet found any difference in this stream.PAR
Everytime someone claims that they can hear improvements made by some nonsense change; I challenge them to prove it in an ASTM ( American Society for Testing and Materials ) specified blind test. I never get any takers.
Gee, I wonder why not? Who cares what they think? Might as well be ASPCA.
to a country that has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
Bruce From DC - I'm sure you must be joking. I think it is very funny, in any case.
a seller or a manufacturer of that stupid chip? Isn't it like Anthony Michaelson coming on and discussing some product or another over and over endlessly for days? I know this isn't your Forum to moderate, but wasn't this supposed to be kicked to Propeller Head Plaza? Although I don't why those people over there are being tortured with it. I have another idea. How about this: while I am totally against the death penalty, I do make one exception. Scott Peterson? No. Michael Jackson? No. Robert Blake? No. But all the people who prattle on endlessly about this chip - yes. We could hold a big event, let's say, in Washington, DC., where we execute all these people who talk about the chip. Here's the truly genius part of the plan: we charge $100 per seat for spectators, with all proceeds going to the AA as donations! MusicMike could even have his rib cookoff there at the same time. We could sell beer for $5 a bottle, and everyone in the bleachers could have a good time watching the chipsters being executed. But since we are sensitive men of the times, we wouldn't offer the executees a last cigarette, because as sensitive men, we know that would be bad for them. It's just an idea; run it past the Bored and see what they think.
TJE
A quick check of posts here reveals this fact: The people who have never heard the chip yet are certain it can't be happening, go on at roughly three times the length of those who have heard it and are satisfied.YOU ARE THE PRATTLERS!
clark
Meanwhile, we are just generating evidence for my friends at the FTC.;-)
Uh, oh, you mean I've got to watch out for a bunch of bumbling bureaucrats? Now, you really are scaring me. :-)
Often, you seem like a reasonable guy. But I'd like to see/hear/read you acknowledge something I think is pretty obvious; otherwise I might change my mind about that: that listening isn't necessarily "the test," because our ears/mind can deceive us. Hearing is fallible. Don't you agree? It's pretty obvious I think.As one trained in experimental science, I've got great response for empiricism. But people get it wrong even when it's quantitative, even when rigorous methods are employed. And you must admit that in this case the methods aren't especially rigorous, at least in most cases.
Clearly you think the chip works; that's a different issue. What I'm questioning is your claim that listening is THE TEST. It isn't. Listening is fallible. Wouldn't you agree?
Jim Austin
Talk about a set of loaded questions. :-)This chip debate is a Catch-22: "If you can hear the chip you must be crazy, or at least hearing things, (because the chip can't possibly work - it's too damn small for one thing haha) so we will discredit whatever you say. But if you cannot hear the chip, then you must not be easily influenced by psychological phenomena, and we welcome you into the circle of sceptics and sane people."
Doesn't that pretty well sum up the Catch-22?
No (intellectual) arguments about listening or measurements from either side will sway the other side. That is why I posted the comment that listening is the only way to find out how the chip (or any audio item) will perform for a particular person in his system.
Even then, one might have difficulty making a definitive (categorical) statement about it.Geoff
...and most often it works the opposite way. One of the big problems with this public world of audio is the stigma that comes from admitting you can't hear something, and the ease with which those who claim to hear it can dismiss you. If you can't hear it, then your system isn't good enough--or, worse, that it isn't "tuned"--or you've got a tin ear. Might as well say publicly that they can't please their wives or girlfriends.Jim
I don't recall any proponent of the chip actually accusing a person who had null results with the chip of having bad ears or a poor system. I can certainly see why someone would wonder why he couldn't hear the thing when many others say they can. As I recollect, most, if not all, systems of those that reported null results on AA were outstanding "audiophile" systems. Ah, sweet mystery of life... :-)
I have seen many flights of fancy over the perception. Chinese Whispers again perhaps.
When people ask me if I'm an audiophile, I reply "No I'm an engineer". I buy my gear based on good science and engineering. I talk to the manufacturers who will talk to you. (William Johnson, Bob Graham, John Dunlavy ) etc. I listen for good science and engineering vs. BS. You can't get good sound from BS. You can get people to think they hear good sound from BS just like you can convince some people that a naked peerson is wearing clothes. The BS falls apart when listening tests are done in accordance with ASTM methods that greatly reduce the chance of guessing the correct answer.
'you can't get good sound from bs. you can get people to think they hear good sound from bs'agreed. ime all good tweaks have some good engineering principle behind them. even bad tweaks sometimes use real theory and correct terminology but prove to be bs in practice. the chip is pure unadulterated bs of the lamest kind and only suitable for the most gullible. however it has found its market in the affluent audiophile community much to my dismay.
PAR
It really is a no brainer. Now can we get back on topic? Since you have nothing useful to offer on the subject of my post wouldn't it make more sense to just start your own thread to house your thoughts on the GSIC? This thread polluting happens frequently here at the Asylum, what explains the urge so many have to behave in this manner?
'this thread polluting happens frequently here at the asylum, what explains the urge so many have to behave in this manner?'i presume this was an open question and i wont be called a polluter for answering it? its called honest and open discussion. if you want a forum where your opinions aren't questioned maybe you are posting in the wrong place? i suggest you get the manufacturer of these devices to host their own forum where you can moderate?
in the meantime why don't you tell me why my thoughts about the effect being placebo in nature are so far off course? do you honestly believe a new force of nature has been harnessed that makes cds sound slightly better but leaves no trace of its actions? i have no doubt that the device works for you, i also have no doubt that you hear something, but you are unable to explain the effect and unwilling to accept the conclusions of those who say it cant work and the effect is placebo, a proven phenomenom. what conclusion am i supposed to draw from this?
PAR
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
