|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.116.186.171
In Reply to: Re: This guy might be a genius... posted by andy19191 on March 19, 2007 at 12:32:21:
...people do not examine it. They just go there looking for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place.One doesn't need to see the contents of our private communications to see some of Kramer's egregious conduct. What does the famous, Kramer waltzing into Randi's office and getting Steven Howard's protocol, unamended, approved by Randi tell you about the guy's MO? Steve Eddy comments on this, and other, JREF misdeeds in the discussions linked to below.
"Did you respond by simply deleting the sticking point and sending in the revised proposal stating this is the new proposal so lets get on with it? If not, why not?"
No, regarding the first proposal's JREF sticking point, I assumed they got the message as it had been repeated to them multiple times. They didn't seem to care was my impression.
In the second instance, I was still investigating the wisdom of applying GSIC treatment in a manner outside of the devices instructions when the shit hit the fan on April 26, 2005 over Kramer's brazen lies.
Follow Ups:
Hi Wellfed,This comment from another part of this thread says it all "...people do not examine it. They just go there looking for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place."
It's a shame that previous statement is so true. So many of the objectivists here claim they want to have technical discussions & want to discuss what's really happening in audio, when the sad fact is plainly revealed that most of them just want their opinions and voodoo science to be accepted as being the truth even when it's not.
Although I didn't read all of the thread about JREF I read enough to understand they were playing the type of games, the objectivists here play. It's exactly the same thing that happens to me when I attempt to prove I can detect differences in wires. The objectivists want to stack the deck of cards against there being any possibility of my detecting any differences and once I object to their changing the test, they claim I'm chicken and I'm backing out!
In the end it's their loss not yours my friend.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
how do you attempt to demonstrate it? And in what way to these "objectivists" change the rules?It's an honest question. I have no agenda.
Hello Again Jim,You've been very civil in our communications, which I deeply appreciate and I want to thank you for. I'll explain as plainly as I can how I attempted to prove to the objectivists here that I can, without a doubt detect diffferences in wires and how they in turn "changed" the rules.
In order to make my position clear we first have to start with the DBT/ABX issue. As I'm sure you know Jim this is something most, if not all objectivists require or else the test isn't valid in their opinion. At the same time doing a DBT via an ABX box is something that most, if not all subjectivists, including myself vehemently oppose. For me it's the uncertainty of the ABX box itself and how it might alter the sound of the system. Then of course there's also the extra wires required to use an ABX, which from a subjectivist POV only adds an additional unknown component and how it might also alter the sound of the system.
So from my POV doing a DBT via an ABX adds two components that will IMHO affect the sound of the system in a way of which I'm uncertain of. Obviously if I'm going to put my hearing acuity to the test in front of others I don't want there to be any uncertainties about the audio components themselves. After much thought I came up with a way to do blind testing sans any ABX or additional wires.
Here's my method for comparing to different sets of interconnects:
1) Setup the system behind a screen or wall with ONLY the speakers being visable to myself & the witnesses present.
2) Have a person behind the screen with the components who'll be manuelly changing the wires. (This person will not be told the reason why he's chaging the wires)
3) Now when the time comes to change wires this person can either change or not change the ICs as he chooses. Of course he has to record which IC was connected everytime.My contention is as I cannot see or hear this person and he cannot see or hear me, how's that really any different from a box changing the wires? I'll NEVER know which IC is being used! Which is precisely the reason for using an ABX.
My only other stipulation is that I must be intimately familiar with the system being used. So either we use my system or I be allowed to live with the system that's going to be used for 3 months so I can become intimately familiar with this new system. The reason for this stipulation Jim is many of the things I listen for in wires are subtle. So I MUST be intimately familiar with the system in question as it is, so I can recognize when subtle changes occur.
Unfortunately EVERY objectivist I've proposed this test to has outright discarded it as being a bogus test. Then after disparaging my proposed test, they revert to wires don't have a sound so the additional wires when using an ABX is a non-issue, plus in their opinion it's been proven that the ABX box is transparent so that's also a non-issue. Others take a different approach and state it would be a waste of their time to come because they know I'm going to fail anyway. Or before they're willing to waste any of their precious time on a test I'll most likely fail, they want to see documented proof that I've already performed such tests and have passed them. In other words as much as these objectivists claim they'd like to see proof that subjectivists can detect real, not imagined differences in wires, they come up with a myriad of excuses of either a) why the test isn't valid or b) why it would be a waste of their time to come and witness this proposed test. Then they usually end with the reality of the situation is I'm just afraid to take the a "REAL" test and I'm simply making up excuses and chickening out. So they want to change the test into an ABX/DBT or NOTHING!
My rebuttle to this is with wires it most certainly hasn't been proven that wires don't have a sound. In fact that's the very thing I'm attempting to provide proof of for these naysayers, so it's NOT a non-issue. Plus it hasn't been proven to me personally that an ABX is completely transparent, so that too is definitely NOT a non-issue. Just like I believe Wellfed wasn't chickening out neither am I. I simply want a test that's possible to pass, not one that starts with the deck stacked against me. If these naysayers truly believe wires don't have a sound of their own, then even in my proposed test I shouldn't be able to reliably detect differences so what are THEY afraid of?
So that's it Jim. I'm curious what your POV is.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
> > I'm curious what your POV is. < <Of course I have to keep in mind the possibility that they would present the "facts" differently, but as you present them I'm mostly on your side.
As far as I know, it has never been proven to the world that IC's (Interconnects, not Intelligent Chips) DO affect the sound. That is, as far as I know, no one has ever passed a thoroughly documented, witnessed, rigorous double-blind test. I might be wrong about this; I admit I don't know the history of these things as well as I should.
But assuming I'm right about this, what I conclude isn't that this lack of proof is somehow proof of lack (of an effect)...but, rather, that a totally rigorous test would 1. be hugely important, and 2. something to work up to.
So let's start with something less ambitious--a reasonable, if not perfect, blind test. The kind of test you've described seems fine to me--not perfect, not irrefutable proof, but it's damned convincing evidence anyway. A hell of a start. Have you done this test before, on your own? With a friend, or spouse? How did it go?
I'd come help you out, but I'm on the other end of the east coast. I grew up not far from there, for what it's worth, in Ft. Pierce. I never get down there anymore, however, unfortunately.
What's next? After you've passed the non-rigorous (but still convincing) test...There's a very good chance that ABX box IS transparent. Maybe you could get comfortable with it. And then, later, you could do the truly rigorous test.
Jim, don't get yourself into more trouble. Look at JA's impressions of blind testing in the April issue of 'Stereophile'. Second, what do you know about ABX testboxes? Ever evaluate one? Third, it is the test itself that throws things off, much like May has tried to talk to you about. Fight or flight? You bet! Take the ABX test and see.
Yes, I tried. Been there, done that, worn the Tee shirt which says "I tried to explain to Jim Austin."
Jim replied to you regarding blind trials. He said :-
> > > "Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome" < < <.But I cannot understand how that 'stress' can be overcome if people are not aware of what can CAUSE that 'stress'. People who advocate blind trials obviously firmly believe that they can control every aspect of the trial and just change the one thing they wish to 'test'. Even after 25 years of research even WE do not know everything that could be having an effect !!
What we do know is that if you have a group (or even more than one person) listening in a room and one of those people tells a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room - not just for the one person telling the lie !! If one of those people THINKS a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room !! And the sound will not get back to normal until that person tells or thinks the truth !!
If you have a group of people, listening in a room, then that group will adjust their posture until a state of equilibrium (a state of ease) is reached. They will do this either by crossing their ankles - left over right or right over left. Or by crossing their knees - left over right or right over left. Or by folding their arms - left over right or right over left. Only when a state of equilibrium is reached, will the sound be at it's best. But, if any one person fidgets, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room and will not get back to the standard it had been until the group readjusts itself back to a state of equilibrium.
Even knowing these things does not really help because you cannot instruct people, involved in a test, not to tell or think a lie and not to fidget !!! Instructions such as those alone would cause enough stress to make the test worthless !!!
People, whether just a few or a larger group, are sensitive to other people's chemical reactions !!
Sound is not just the audio signal travelling through the audio system and is not just the acoustic air pressure waves in the room - sound is what the working memory constructs as a 'sound picture' from the information it eventually receives.I do not believe that I am telling you, John, anything you are not already aware of, nor do I think we are in a tiny minority (although it often appears so). What I think is that so many people are fearful of coming out of their 'comfort zone' - because it can be quite frightening.
Much easier to believe it MUST be "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
All we're talking about here is detecting the difference between 2 interconnects. Tubeguy thinks he can pass a blind (but not necessarily a rigorously double-bind) test, stress or no stress, as long as it's on his terms. So let's get on with it and go from there.The rest of this is just an attempt to discredit a legitimate testing procedure. It makes me wonder what you guys are hiding.
Jim,I've never actually did the test the way I proposed it be done. That proposition was made by myself as being a viable substitute for using an ABX/DBT. I attempted to do manuelly what an ABX does electronically, for those who ONLY accept an ABX/DBT as valid blind test.
The test I have passed on interconnects was to have a friend pick one of two ICs as he so chose. After he selected the IC a towel was hung in front of the system so I couldn't see which IC was being used. Using my stereo in my home I never got less than 8 out of 10 correct. Sometimes I get 10 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 correct. I don't know why but after 8 times it just gets more difficult for me. I don't know if it's listener fatigue, boredom with testing, stress as some claim or what. Perhaps it's simply I believe it's more difficult after 8 times so gets more difficult after 8 times!
In other people's homes the sucess rate would definitely correlate with how intimately familiar I was with the system in question. At my friend Rick's home the stereo (Counterpoint SA5000 preamp/SA 220 power amp, Meridian 808 CDP & all XLO Reference wires) which I was very familiar with, sometimes 7 out of 10, sometimes 8 out of 10, but never better than that. At other peoples homes whose stereo I didn't know & component quality wasn't as high as Rick and my own, sometimes it was even as low as 5 out of 10 which is like guessing. This is why I insist the test MUST be done on a system I am initmately familiar with. Also I'm assuming the naysayers would insist on my using wires that are only subtly different. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if the wires sounded substantially different the naysayers would insist one of the two ICs was "improperly designed". That seems to be an objectivist catch-all for when any audio component sounds different. They never believe it's evidence that components sound different, but rather it means one of the components is "improperly designed" or broken. What would be interesting would be which one of the two would be considered "improperly designed"?
As far as using an ABX is concerned. "IF" I was allowed to live with one in my system and "IF" I came to believe it was indeed transparent, I'd consider allowing it's use. However anything I've read or heard about it from sources I trust leads me to believe it's not transparent.
In your own tests, in your own system, as you described them, are you hearing a particular quality to the sound that changes, differences in specific characteristics, or what? Is there a particular point in a particular recording where you can usually hear the difference?To me, this is really important. It's true, as JA (in the April Stereophile) and others contend, that the best way to evaluate the character and quality of a piece of equipment is to listen to it over time. But I think it's important for the credibility of our hobby that we be able to relate those qualitative changes to specific aspects of the sound that we can point to and say "see? that's different. It's the cymbals" or whatever. I'm not talking about relating it to something measured, but to something reliably and repeatably perceived. And, of course, it's important to be able to make a compelling case that we actually hear what we claim to hear--even if it's not lab-certified proof. (There's no such thing as a perfect experiment in science, and even good ones are hard to achieve. A lot of the work that moves science forward is good but imperfect, suggestive but not definitive.)
So--what do you listen for? Also, can you do this for any IC comparison? How many combinations have you tried?
Jim,I believe you're asking this question earnestly and so even though I'll probably be mocked for what I'm about to say, I'm going to answer you honestly. I MAINLY listen for a particular point in a particular recording where I can usually hear the difference. That's "IF" I'm trying prove I can hear differences in components to others. However to really know a component's true characteristics I'd like 30-90 days with it.
My favorite song for hearing differences in audio components is Aja, by Steely Dan. Towards the end of the song when the drummer is banging away he stops and clicks his drumsticks together twice. Once I've listened to an audio component's replication of that event and get familiar with it I can almost always differentiate between what component being used. For the sake of this post I consider wires a component as well, ok?
I also use Mark Johnson's CD entitled Deep Focus and the song I use is I Told You So. There's a part where he blows the sax and the music just resonates from deep within the sax, you can almost hear the air coming out of the horn, it seems difficult for most components as they tend to sound different on this.
I also like to use a CD called Jump In The Water by Jump In The Water. The song I use is It's Not for You. This is a great song for vocals. These guys can harmonize plus they're a a few feet behind the man singer who has a great voice himself. So I hear vocals and soundstaging. If you like stringed instruments you'd love these guys they play everything from lute, to mandolin, to guitar & everything in between. Everyone who's heard it loves it and believe it or not there's many of them used, like new on Amazon for $.01 I honestly don't know how to classify their music.
Of course I use some of my jazz ladies for vocals and piano and to listen to soundstage width, depth and height. I don't remember the song now but I used to own a CD by Dean Peer called Ucross. It was only him on a bass, but in one song he must have been sitting and then stood up while playing because you heard the music shift up about 2ft all at once! It was an incredible experience and proved a soundstage had height as well as depth & width.
I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. So I'm afraid most of my real testing has been done with things I and my friends can afford --- wires and tubes. Hopefully this answers your questions, if not I'll try to expound.
Thetubeguy1954
====================================================================
If Nature Abhors A Vacuum, Why Does Vacuum Tube Equipment Sound So Damn Good?
This is exactly what I was asking for and your description is very clear. I'm going to go try and find that Jump in the Water CD locally.I'm not talking about subjective evaluations--just hearing a change.
My point is that if you know exactly what to look for, and it's real, it's possible to know whether the change occurs or not (if not always easy). You've found a specific, repeatable difference; presumably, that difference is in some way related to the more qualitative things reviewers like to talk about. What exactly is different about the sound of those drumsticks? And how (if at all) does it relate to the subjective differences you notice in long-term listening? See, this is how we close the gap between subjective and objective. You don't have to be in either camp if you can hear repeatable differences of detail and relate them to subjective changes. Exciting stuff.
And by the way, since someone is bound to ask I'll go ahead and answer: I'm not sure I can do what you claim to be able to do (and by phrasing it that way I don't mean to suggest that I don't believe you; I do.) I once had my wife administer a similar test (I even used towels) and was absolutely sure of what I heard. The difference was beyond any question. And I got it exactly wrong. Twice. (I was trying to identify which cable was in the system, not just determine whether they had been switched or not).
> > I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. < <
You would probably be surprised.
Thanks again.
Jim,Thanks I appreciate your candor. FYI Jump In The Water is an extremely difficult CD to locate. I've always been happy with my purchases of used CDs on Amazon, so I recommend you buy one of their "like new" copies for $.01. With shipping it will probably be less that $3.00
To be honest with you Jim at one time I didn't even realize there were objectivists & subjectivists. Many years ago when I first started getting serious about audio I believed wires couldn't possibly make a difference. I also believed tubed equipment was an obsolete technology. Yet at the same time I heard differences in amps and preamps etc. I guess I was an objectivist who demanded proof that wires effected the sound or that tubed amps weren't obsolete and easily bettered by solid state amps, but I listened subjectively or however you'd classify one with the beliefs I had at that time. I was quite taken aback when I joined the Asylum and felt animosity expressed by objectivists towards anyone who listened subjectively. Up till then in all my experience I had never met anyone who didn't believe audio components couldn't or shouldn't sound differently but I digress.
Getting back to when I listen for differences between components. When I first detected differences in the sound of the 2 drumsticks struck together I attempted to determine which I believed was the most realistic replication. When I made my choice later that same day I actually went and bought a pair of drumsticks to hit together and compare. IMHO what I selected as being the more accurate replication was indeed just that. What really surprised me is just how dynamically limited most audio systems are! I needed to hit the sticks quite a bit less hard than the drummer on Aja or else it was too damn loud.
Jim you mentioned when you attempted to detect differences in two IC's you were wrong both times. It's my contention that when people test to hear differences they listen to way too much info. Testing one's hearing acuity & listening to music are two completely different functions. Hence they need to be done completely differently. Try doing what I did concentrate on something simple like the drumsticks in the end of Aja being hit together. You want to listen for about 30 secs when testing, it way to easy to overload yourself with too much info. I honestly believe, and I AM NOT trying to toot my own horn, that I can teach ANYONE who doesn't have a hearing disability, and who truly wants to learn, how to differentiate between audio components withing an hour or so.
In any event these days I'm a subjectivist who believes there should be a measureable reason for everything we hear. The main problem I have with objectivists, at least the vocal objectivists here on PHP, is that they believe todays measurements are sufficient and complete within themselves. Then in order to make their religous dogma work they need to come up with statements like this idiotic remark from Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." Thus following their belief if an amp does indeed sound different that simply means it's not "properly designed"! I often wonder how they'd react if an amp was reviewed by Aczel that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. Being that this new amp sounded different from all Peter's previously accepted "properly designed" amps would mean it couldn't possibly be a "properly designed" amp. But what if this new not "properly designed" amp sounded almost indistinguishable from live music? Would they still reject it as being not being "properly designed"? That would be an interesting dilemma no?
The reality is today's accepted audio measurements do not correlate sufficinetly enough with what we hear! That belief on my part doesn't mean I think all measurements are useless as more than one objectivist here has suggested. Rather it means I realize that scientists and audio manufacturers haven't yet discovered exactly what traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it is live music and not recorded. Once these measurements are discovered and implemented, we'll close the gap between all subjectivists and objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats happening in audio. Unfortunately those who simply want to be correct at all costs will find someway to claim these new measurements are bogus or wrong...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
...as I'm always looking for objective evidence of change.One track I like to use for this is "Symbol In My Driveway" from Jack Johnson's "On and On" title. The first 30 seconds or so of this track is all I usually need to spot resolution and soundstage changes. Sometimes change is subtle and requires repeated listenings to determine if ANYthing worthwhile occurred. Other times, changes can be quite dramatic.
Geoff Kait's Brilliant Pebbles accessory situated on ceramic tile 'tables' in the 'right' locations is an example of dramatic. Thought I'd squeeze in a little advertisement for Geoff here. ;-)
but in a most uncareful way, wellfed. Don't worry you are in no danger of becoming a "scientist" :).
I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status. So I don't do DBT's; whoopdedoo! You quote/unquote scientists can have them, and take your so-called placebo effect with you. ;-)
"I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status"
The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead. — Luther Burbank (1849-1926), American plant breeder, botanist, naturalist.Not the other kind. ;-)
Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Not the other kind. ;-)"Sorry, Wellfed, there is no other kind of scientist...at least not early in their career. Later with age all people become more conservative but that doesn't mean the new ideas don't get through! Just more likely that the new idea is really something good and hype.
"Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Again, I just don't think you get this really. Whereever it may lead is coming from the fact that often an unexpected result of an experiment is more interesting than if you get an expected result. However; once an anamalous observation is made, every effort is then given to make sure that it wasn't a failure, bias, or artifact in the experiment itself first, then to try to reproduce it (under CONTROLLED conditions). If it is reproducible under one set of conditions then what about other conditions. Determining the boundaries as it were. If it passes these tests then an attempt to determine what it means can be undertaken. This is what "whereever it may lead" means.
So while you have the intent of exploration you are not really approaching it with the skeptical mindset of a true scientist. Of course they too get excited by new results...and then they sober up and find out if the observation was really the result of something new or if it was a flaw in the experiment somehow. Face value is not an accepted aspect of exprimental science.
...while there's an emergency going on.We better turn our attention to the science used in the following post.
Looks like libel to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
I don't follow your conclusion at all.In what way is "Scientific Method losing ground" ?
Hi John. I appreciate your point of view, but for what it's worth, I'm not too worried about getting myself in trouble, whatever you might mean by that (Do you mean with JA? I doubt that's a concern; anyway, I'm not concerned).For what it's worth, I've thought a great deal about blind tests, and I've probably read (and retained) everything JA ever wrote on the subject, and much else. Yet I also know how to think for myself. Your idea that "it's the test itself that throws things off" is, if the subjectivist equivalent of the objectivist insistence on pure, perfect methodology--that is to say, whether it's intentional or not, it's a way of creating a divide that can't be crossed. And I think crossing it isn't only possible; it's the right thing to do.
John, there's absolutely nothing about a proper test--the CONCEPT of a test--that causes fundamental problems. Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome. Let's face it John; either you hear it or you don't, and if you really do hear it, reliably and consistently, you can learn to hear it under stress. I'm not talking about deciding which is better, or making judgments about audio quality. I'm only talking about learning from practice that something--one thing, anything, on the track of your choice using your choice of equipment--has changed. If you CAN'T pass a test like that, then just how important could these differences possibly be?
If JA has a problem with this opinion--which I seriously doubt--I'm sure he'll let me know.
Give it up Jim, you don't know the first thing about ABX testing, except what you have read. Give it a good honest try!
That's a pretty weak argument John.
We have been trying, debating with the proponents, and actively discussing privately between ourselves, ABX testing, and other double blind testing for almost 30 years. You will find my first input, (after sincerely trying a test box, unlike you) in 'The Audio Amateur' back in 1979 as an LTE directly aimed at Dr. Lipshitz.
If you look at the articles in the 'TAA' in 1979 and 1981, by Rod Rees, you might get further insight in the problems of ABX testing.
You know way, way more than I do about audio, okay? No reasonable person could doubt that, and I certainly don't. You've forgotten things I may never learn.I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations, which, frankly, make the industry and hobby seem tired, tradition-bound, the last refuge (along with cigars, Bordeaux, and other luxury consumer items) of over-privileged old white guys (a description that would fit me pretty well except that I'm only modestly over-privileged and I'm not particularly old, though I'm not young either.)
John, you're royalty in this world; I bow down before you. But that doesn't make you right. And that's what makes it fun.
> > "I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations," < <I would go along with and be quite OK with your description of a "fresh perspective" and "a refusal to accept these status-quo explanations" if I did not see you being HIGHLY SELECTIVE in this "refusal to accept these status-quo explanations".
You see Jim, I do not see you challenging John Atkinson's use of the Myrtle Wood Blocks. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "vibrations" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Wes Phillips use of the Shakti Stone. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "electromagnetic field" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Michael Fremer's use of the Furutech or Acoustic Revive de-magnetisers on vinyl records. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "magnetism" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Nordost and their liquid which they suggest people apply to the LABEL side of a CD and to the outer insulation of all cables. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "static" - a word you have heard of before in science ?"
I do not see you challenging Sonus Faber and their 'special lacquer' which they apply to their speaker cabinets and which they describe as 'friendly to audio'. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "resonance" - a word you have heard of before in science ?I do not see you asking John Atkinson "By what mechanism are the Myrtle Wood Blocks altering the audio signal ?" "Why do the Myrtle Wood Blocks have to be used in threes and why do they have to be the shape of the Golden-section ratio 'magic' dimensions ?"
I do not see you asking Wes Phillips "By what mechanism is the Shakti Stone having an effect ?"
I do not see you asking Michael Fremer "By what mechanism is the de-magnetiser altering the information stored on the vinyl record ?"
I do not see you asking Nordost "By what mechanism is your liquid affecting the sound ?"
I do not see you asking Sonus Faber "By what mechanism is your 'special lacquer' affecting the sound ?"I, personally, can accept that all these things affect the 'sound' because we (Peter and I) have been there, done similar things, heard the effect !!
In an earlier reply you stated that you thought that Richard Feynman would yes, probably, have been curious enough to have tried many of the things referred to as 'changing the sound' in audio, might have heard an improvement in the sound but then, eventually,
"would have concluded, after further investigation, that this was still more evidence for the power of suggestion and the fallibility of human perceptions. And he would have found it fascinating. He might even have tried the photo-in-the-freezer thing...but it would have been, for him, an experiment in the freakiness of human perceptions and the power of suggestion. And he would have found that no less interesting than if the effect had been real."
My understanding of Richard Feynman would suggest otherwise. That he would have gnawed at it like a dog with a bone, then, still not able to come up with an explanation would have placed the problem 'on a shelf', but would have returned to it again at some later time, taking it down from the shelf, dusting it off, looking at it again, because it would have niggled him !!!
It would have niggled him that he did not have an explanation - because this is what good scientists feel !!My reading of Richard Feynman is that he would not have so readily dismissed so many diverse people's observations as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing." I see him as too great a scientist as that and too great a teacher of science as that.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May. There's a lot here to reply to. I probably won't have time to deal with all of it, but I'll give it a try.Please understand that when I say I have a fresh perspective, that's not some schtick I have adopted. Not unlike your theories, it's an after-the-fact observation, a tentative, interim assessment.
Your list is a curious mixture of things that make no sense--for which no mechanism is conceivable--and things that are fairly reasonable from a mechanistic perspective--which is to say that a lot of scientists wouldn't believe it would be audible, but most would acknowledge that there's a chance because potential mechanisms DO exist. So what you dismiss with a sneer as "my having heard the word once in science" (which if I were more sensitive I would find offensive, having spent many years struggling to understand the theories--by Feynman and many others--that you have encountered, if at all, only rendered into prose accessible by people who haven't paid their technical dues. But I digress) is in fact an awareness that, though it would require further study to determine whether the effect is real, there are cases in which it is at least POSSIBLE that it's real, and then there are the utter absurdities, like the chip and photos in the freezer and generalized, ethical "threat fields" that work the same way for chemicals as they do for e/m fields.)
If you think I'm intentionally avoiding offending anyone, I'l dispense with that right now.
myrtle wood blocks: may high-end manufacturers incorporate anti-mechanical-resonance technology in their designs, most often a big chunk of metal. A lot of attention is paid (by more skilled designers) to where their circuit boards are supported (i.e, whre you put the screws). Why? Because (as is well established and not the least bit controversial) mechanical vibrations do affect the performance of electronic circuits. I think people would find that those designs that pay the most attention to vibration control are improved the least by wood blocks (myrtle or otherwise). Supporting a component on wood blocks is a vibrational band-aid, and a reasonable ones. Does the type of wood matter? That seems a lot goofier, but I defer judgment on that out of respect for the accomplishments of Charles Hansen. "Golden ratio" dimensions? I don't believe this makes any difference at all. Marketing. And yes, I know about the Cardas connection, and their cables. (BTW, I bought some Jenga blocks a few weeks ago and tried them out. My son loves to play with them, but I haven't heard any effect in my system.)
* Shakti stones. Having played with these literally for years (along with the onlines) I'm a bit less charitable about these--but, again, theres a clear and obvious mechanism. They're a poor value, but they DO work. They don't do anything that (eg) a big glass of water wouldn't do, but who wants to put a big glass of water on top of their expensive preamp? (probably there are other materials that work just as well) Again, it's a band-aid. Well designed equipment is, well, probably not completely immune to RFI, but mostly immune. Do they work? I've never concluded that they affect the sound in my system--and I've listened to A LOT of different stuff, but they certainly reduce RFI, if only by a very small amount. Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio.
Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong.
A special lacquer on a speaker cabinet shouldn't make any difference except for speakers (like, I think, those Bosendorfer thingies--are they still around?) where the cabinets are SUPPOSED to vibrate as part of the characteristic sound. I've not listened to Sonus Faber speakers to any significant extent, but my impression is that their cabinets are very solid and non-resonant. If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference. I suspect this is a marketing claim, intended to exploit an implied connection to the fine Italian string instruments some of their speakers are named after. Notice that "friendly to audio" is pretty vague. An empty claim.
Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it. A static charge on speaker cables could affect the sound in principle, but I doubt it.
As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. I'm pretty sure, though, that he would not have shared your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason. You seem not to understand--even after I (and no doubt others) have explained it repeatedly, that it's uncontroversial and (in human terms) universal. Feyman would, I'm sure, have had far less trouble than you accepting this. If you could only get past this, you would see that the mystical explanations you dream up are unnecessary. Feynman would have seen that right off.
> > As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. < <Actually Jim, we have a pretty good idea...
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
- Richard Feynman
A very quick reply Jim.
With reference to what you call my snide remarks. I USUALLY try to cover my tracks to avoid any misrepresentation of my comments by saying "I am exaggerating here merely to make a point". I apologise for forgetting to do this.
Re Shakti Stones:-
> > "Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio." < <I made the point of stating that I accepted and believed that all the people I mentioned HAD heard what they said they had heard. I have no doubts about that - so I do not challenge their descriptions.
> > "Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong." < <I don't think Michael IS wrong about what he heard. I just don't think that the demagnetising is altering the information on the vinyl record. I think there IS something else going on. I believe that the improvement in the sound (the additional information Michael heard) was already in the room - that demagnetising the vinyl record changed the environment which allowed Michael to 'hear' (resolve) that information better !!! You say you haven't given it a lot of thought. Why not ? It is to do with audio and sound - the very subject you write about !! Aren't you the teenyist, weenyist bit curious ? I disagree with you about Feynman. HE was the most curious scientist I know - about anything and everything !!!
Regarding the 'special lacquer'. > > "If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference." < <
THAT is IT - That is the crucial sentence. And, if you WERE 'stunned' when you discovered that a special lacquer DID make a difference to the sound - what would you do ? Ignore it ? Dismiss it as 'suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing' ? Or, would you carry out some experiments ? Would you try to find out why ? Would you look for an explanation ? If you could not find an explanation from within the conventional electronic or acoustic theory text books would you look elsewhere for an explanation or would you give up ? If you found that you could apply this 'special lacquer' to the central heating radiator in the listening room, to the wall lights, to the piano, to the perspex lid of the turntable - to this, and to that, and gain improvements in the sound each time - and be even FURTHER 'stunned' to the state of being devastated by what was happening - what would you do then ? After spending 30 years of your life making state of the art speakers and headphones, working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories - what would YOU do ? Keep absolutely silent for fear of being ridiculed or would you tell other people involved in the world of audio ? To see what they made of it all ?
> > > "Regarding your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason." < < <
No, Jim, I don't think it is me who has the blind spot. Nor do I believe that what we have discovered is akin to a religious belief or conversion.
I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do - so if you do not reject it, then neither do I. I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. How I wish that 'suggestion etc and effective marketing' were that powerful.
Regards,
May Belt.
> > I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do...I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. < <On this at least we can agree. The difference, I think, is that I believe, from experience, that the exceptions are very rare, and you believe, from experience, that they are very common. I think you credit people's experiences too much, and you think I credit them too little. That's an interesting difference.
Who is demanding the status quo? I am up to learning new things, not being told that I don't know what I am doing or hearing by someone who hasn't even tried yet to try the same things that I have tried.
That's it, Tubeguy! Happens to me as well.
v
> The thing is......people do not examine it. They just go there looking
> for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make
> idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place.I cannot speak for others but I read the summary thread. Read a few hundred posts in the raw threads for confirmation and concluded what I had extracted from the summary thread was looking reasonable. The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled listening test of cables and then backing out.
I would be surprised if people read all the relevant posts which run well into the thousands. At a guess, most will read the summary thread or part of it and form their opinions based on that.
Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going on based on the threads.
Steve Eddy's point might be true although the way it was expressed would tend to make people check rather than take his word for it. However, what most people are going to see is the overall behaviour and this does not rest on individual details being true or false.
Some aspects of Kramer's performance probably deserve criticism but set against the overall process this is again a detail. Most of the apparent issues occurred towards the end when the prospect of a test occurring was effectively over.
If you want to lay this to rest after all this time my guess is that you will need to get somebody you really trust like a member of your family to explain to you how and why you were at fault during the first half of the process. Even though I suspect you cannot see it yourself others can.
...is that the whole thing became increasingly convoluted and acrimonious as time progressed.The summary thread you refer to is actually Kramer's own private little playground. He, and he alone, comes up with this 'summary' view. What you see there is what Kramer wants you to see. He doesn't leave a lot out, but what he does is certainly crafty.
"The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled listening test of cables and then backing out."
Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd like to see you try and support the notion.
"Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going on based on the threads."
This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.
"Some aspects of Kramer's performance probably deserve criticism but set against the overall process this is again a detail. Most of the apparent issues occurred towards the end when the prospect of a test occurring was effectively over."
Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to fruition. He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of outright lies. What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF Challenge?
"If you want to lay this to rest after all this time my guess is that you will need to get somebody you really trust like a member of your family to explain to you how and why you were at fault during the first half of the process. Even though I suspect you cannot see it yourself others can."
First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being. Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here. Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't. The aggravating thing for me is it's like you guys don't want the truth. And seriously more aggravating yet, it seems that Kramer was banking on just that. It's downright disgusting IME.
> > "The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that
> > I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled
> > listening test of cables and then backing out."
>
> Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd
> like to see you try and support the notion.That is not what the sentence says.
> > "Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going
> > on based on the threads."
>
> This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.Only if you ask for it since I am not pushing this along.
Your behaviour when defining the test was irrational. My interpretation of the probable cause is that your responses looked more to be those of someone who was confused and uncertain rather than someone who had come to realise the situation (i.e. the test was going to be failed) and is trying to delay and back out. Clifff using the same information would appear to interpret things differently.
> Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to
> fruition.The test did not happen because you did not send in a protocol that was agreed by both parties.
> He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of
> outright lies.I can see no evidence of him taking great pains. Once it became fairly clear what was happening he let his frustration show rather than working at being professional.
> What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the
> 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF
> Challenge?I can see nothing in your application that questions the integrity of the challenge. All you had to do was submit a protocol, modify the points of contention while leaving the agreed points alone and after one or two exchanges it is done. The JREF side was trying to do this almost upto the end but you were not. Exactly what you were doing is debatable.
What I did view as a bit odd was not corresponding in a neutral manner but I guess there is a significant element of show business in what they do.
> First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and
> myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being.
> Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here.The postings are on JREF to give an idea of what happened. I can see little to suggest dishonesty one either side. But your irrational behaviour cannot be disputed.
> Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself
> because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't.Kramer has betrayed nobody that I can see. He let himself down a bit by not behaving in more professional manner but that would appear to be about the limit of it.
> The aggravating thing for me is
> it's like you guys don't want the truth.The truth about your paranormal abilities concerning the chip or your interaction with the JREF?
I think you should probably accept the fact that neither is of importance to anybody but yourself except as a topic to chat about in a group like this. The former is because nobody believes you have paranoraml abilities and the second is because they are reasonably content with what they have seen on JREF with the odd exception like Steve Eddy.
BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
If you have anything to add please post it here - or start another thread. I will read it carefully.I am not going to get involved in 'phone calls to the UK (where I am) and am curious as to why you are so apparently desperate to convince a sceptic.
I'm offering this service, free of charge, for YOUR benefit? Remember, I already know the truth. My assumption is that you'd want to know it as well.I'll post some details, in component parts, working backward from April 26, 2005. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your commentary on the events of that day which have been previously documented here at PHP.
BTW, I don't incur any long-distance charges calling the UK, hence my offer.
Are you planning to "save" me or something?I don't go for that.
Why do you want to 'phone me? (no cost for me either, but I do have a life. I think)
The only 'saving' I had in mind is for you to see the truth about JREF.A phone conversation is simply more efficient than all the typing necessary to unravel a highly convoluted mess, but let's just skip the phone call talk and get back to business.
Go back to the 17/18/19th and your pissing around trying to challenge and change things, then put it off until July/October must have caused them to totally lose patience.Most of the candidates wriggle out of taking even a preliminary test. If you wanted to do it you have to be squeaky clean.
You cannot seem to grasp that it was YOU making the challenge, YOU who wanted to take their $1M, YOU who were confident that you could hear the ENOORMOUS differences. And YOU who blew it.
Don't you think that with all those enormous egos (like KRAMER) at JREF totally convinced that the GSIC was a fraud they would have LOVED you to test scientifically and fail?
No more.
I dislike being impolite, but i think you are very misguided.
Hopefully we can continue to converse on other subjects here without any difficulty. Best wishes to you as always.
d
> Would you care to join clifff and myself in examining the facts?.No thank you. I replied because you posted twice on the thread that disappeared off the right hand side. I am content to let clifff represent "us guys".
> BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
In which case, if you do not think the chip operates in a paranormal manner how do you think it operates in a non-paranormal manner?
In the grand scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.One last thing before I bid you adieu.
Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum April 26th, 2005
"Originally posted by KRAMER
That's a good one, and an entirely different paranormal claim. You'll have to send in a new application...especially since I haven't heard a peep from you since last week when you promised a new protocol within hours.A most curious, deafening silence.
Oh, and by the way, Piano Teacher is who he claims to be.
Did anyone here really accuse him of being something else?
If so, I must have missed it."
When he received and responded to the following correspondence from the previous day (flow of correspondence moves from bottom to top)
"My protocol is better than the Howard protocol in that it allows for the GSIC to be applied in a manner closer to the instructions of the manufacturer. I will research the matter however.-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer[edit]randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: dummy chipUse the HOWARD protocol.
-Kramer, JREF
====================
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: dummy chip
Kramer,
Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005"His intent with this April 26 posting obviously was not intended to deceive me as I had both the memory of, and the correspondence on file, to know the truth of the matter in no uncertain terms. So tell me, who was he trying to deceive, and more importantly, why was he trying to deceive anybody at all? I'll get into the other details with Cliff.
> I seldom pause to consider how the chip functions...In the grand
> scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.So it might operate in a paranormal manner if this science thing cannot explain how it works?
> Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum
> April 26th, 2005You are asking me to guess? OK I will guess.
You have been messing Kramer around for ages with your irrational behaviour and he is pretty p*ssed off. All he wants is for you to agree a procedure for the experiment which is straightforward but you will not do it. You are telling him all sorts of irrelevancies (he used a different word which I cannot recall) which he is ignoring while repeatedly asking you to supply a bl**dy procedure. You finally send him one but then switch to messing him around with dates you have already agreed to. He threatens not to send the procedure in an effort to stop you p*ssing about with the dates.
During this period you change the procedure you want to perform in discussion with other people in one of the threads. The procedure written on a piece of paper in front of Kramer is different (correct me if I am wrong? - I know I should not have asked that). You are posting all these details at him but he is quite reasonably letting them wash over him because they are irrelevant to him.
He has loads of other applications to look after at the same time? When he next gives your application some attention he decides to send the procedure he has got in front of him off to be agreed instead of trying to use it as a stick to try stop you p*ssing him around with the dates.
Your complaint is that he sent off the wrong procedure even though it was the only one he had (did he have the correct procedure on a piece of paper in front of him?) and that this is some sort of deliberate plot against you. The basis for this is that he should have paid attention to whatever you were banging on about in your emails which one quite reasonably would have expected him to ignore because it is not his concern. I think the worst one can claim is a mistake and if my guessing above is close to the mark possibly not even that.
Was this a good guess?
By the way he has done something wrong. He has made a positive suggestion to you to use the Howard protocol. OK I am sure he meant it in the form of stop p*ssing around and lets go with what we have got but it can be read as a positive suggestion. So when you failed the test you could then say I was not sure (lots of evidence for this!) but you persuaded me to use the Howard protocol and this is why I failed.
I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves and requires.I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it before tomorrow evening at the earliest.
I would like to comment briefly on the notion that I waffled on test dates. This simply is not true. I was firm with JREF all along that Aug. 1 - Aug. 15, 2005 were the dates that worked for me. Kramer stated on March 31st, 2005 that JREF wished to see the testing take place in June. I provisionally agreed, with reluctance, if the June dates were vital to JREF for some reason, by days end they stated that June testing was not vital and it appeared that the matter was settled.
There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle" where I have posted all of my correspondence with JREF up to the date of the "My Struggle" thread creation date. If you wish to investigate my take on the matter, go to this thread and view the correspondence from March 31st, 2005. This thread is not opening for me at the moment or I would have provided a direct link. If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the emails from my own archives.
> I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves
> and requires.It does not deserve or require much attention - this is a chat page on a nutty audiophile site.
In addition, I wrote it from memory without checking a single piece of correspondence (how much attention does that deserve?) because I was trying to get you to look at the wood rather than the trees.
> I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it
> before tomorrow evening at the earliest.OK but I would appreciate a response at the level of my posting and not more trees. Or, if it has to be trees, can I have just the trees of relevance to Kramer and not all the other ones.
> There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle"
The threads either side load but this one doesn't. Is it huge? Has it been removed and, if so, do you know why? If you have posted other peoples private emails to you there could be quite reasonable reasons for removing it.
> If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the
> emails from my own archives.Thanks for the offer but I really am only chatting on a website to find out about audiophiles.
Perhaps I should add that even if Kramer made a whole bunch of mistakes processing your application and is now covering up (for which I have seen no evidence) it doesn't change anything that is worth bothering about. You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you.
I am content. You would be more content if you made an effort to bring this thing to a close by hearing some uncomfortable truths from somebody you trusted. Posting here is not going to help. I am sure you will dismiss the likes of clifff and myself and symphathetic responses from other audiophiles will only prolong the matter.
Just let me know if they are of any interest to you.BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you presented, was it not?
"You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you."
Pretty much a given, right? I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't pass. 'Science' just marches on. ;-)
> Facts be damned then?...I am not damning facts. I am telling you that I am not particularly interested in a lot of emails on a topic I have looked at and have relatively little residual curiosity about.
> BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you
> presented, was it not?Yes if it is about why you were waffling and why you did not send revised procedures in a timely manner (apart from the first obviously). No emails please, just what motivated you to do what you did.
> Pretty much a given, right?
Yes.
> I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they
> themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't
> pass.It is very difficult to see any similarities between you and JREF. People reading the thread will see you failing to get on with the challenge and JREF not handling that particularly smoothly. But I do not think JREF did you any favours if the matter is not largely closed for you after all this time.
'Science' just marches on. ;-)
Science? You presumably wanted the money as I would if I could see a way to beat their challenge. JREF presumably wants the show business. Science would seem to have a very minor role.
My motivation initiated with one of the persistent calls here to take the Randi Challenge if, in this case, the GSIC really worked. The million dollars was appealing too.JREF did me no favors. I was being sarcastic.
I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are wrong.
Some of the stuff with Kramer ended in a Mexican standoff. I was frustrated with the lack of progress on top of all the deceitful stuff he pulled. My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known on the matter. This 'waffling' over dates matter is another of many JREF deceits. It would take a person about 2 minutes to come to the conclusion that I didn't waffle on the matter if they were to view the pertinent portion of the record. Yet the notion persists. I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to deceit.
> I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything
> but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are
> wrong.I commented based on the threads in JREF which would seem to be reasonably factual. If you want to point errors may I suggest simply quoting the statement which is wrong and stating why it is wrong underneath it in a self contained manner. A general claim without anything concrete is not persuasive.
> My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still
> disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not
> at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known
> on the matter.Well then the remedy would seem to be straightforward. Create a summary thread just like Kramers, inserting the bits you consider are missing and pointing out where in his summary thread things are not quite right. That is, you put in the work and not ask your readers to do it.
> I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to
> deceit.It depends on the case and your viewpoint. Is it sickening that the manufacturers of this chip are deceiving you about its action?
While JREF misdeeds were many, the most irritating proved to be their nasty habit of painting a picture that wasn’t warranted by the negotiations or discussion. Prior to the March 31st phone calls with Kramer I had suggested a couple of proposals that would allow me to take advantage of a family vacation to Florida we were considering in the month of June ’05.These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc, treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.
In the meantime Steven Howard came up with a protocol proposal on the JREF Forums that I considered to hold a lot of promise. I stated as much on the Forum and in my conversation with Kramer on March 31. He was well aware that I had to review the proposal a bit further myself and that I already had some amendments I considered important in mind. He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum for himself, but what the hay, no problem.
In the same conversation we discussed test dates. I told him of my desire to be tested between the dates of August 1 and August 15. I had given the test date matter much consideration and these were the dates that worked around my schedule and concerns. His response was something to the tune of “that’s 6 months from now.” Reviewing the record I notice too that I had also told him that it was my desire to be tested August 1, or later, way back on March 15, a few day after our initial contact with one another if memory serves me. March 15 was the very FIRST day of any email correspondence between ourselves.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: headphones
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]I emphasize this because of Kramer’s insinuation on the Forum March 31 07:29 PM as follows
[More Wasted of Time
Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it.Yes, 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 we exhanged some emails. Go to his thread in CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS to see where it all wound up.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?
__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.]
He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.[-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here
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 corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.
[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:
[privacy edit]
Let's get it rolling.
-Kramer, JREF]Early August was more than “a possibility for” me, it was my clearly stated preference, not too mention expectation, unless JREF could provide a strong case for June testing being vital to the matter. My dates were within the JREF Challenge guidelines and Kramer told me in our March 31 AM phone conversation that he would see what he could do to get Randi to approve those dates. He came across as ‘I will go to bat for you on this one’ and see if I can get Randi to approve of your preference.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Thanks Kramer,
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][-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: kramer here
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 vaolunteers 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]
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Kramer,
I thought I was pretty clear about being reticent about June. If I recall correctly, I stated that June would be fine if that is what it was going to take to get this thing to happen. If you want to fine tune the protocol details over the next week or two and select a date on, or shortly after, Aug. 1 I would be overjoyed to submit unequivocably to being tested on that date with no further ado. If there is a reason that a June date is vital I would be willing to make due with a certain amount of reluctance. If we can avoid all reluctance, wouldn’t you consider that to be a good thing? I really don’t want this to be a sticking point. Aug. 1 is 4 months from tomorrow. If we can agree on Aug. 1, or thereabouts, as the date, I will enter into this test without ANY trepidation. I REALLY don’t want to have ANY trepidation. OTOH, I don’t want you to have any reservations either, so please let me know why a June date is considered important to JREF.---Michael Anda][Kramer’s response Sent: Thu 3/31/2005 2:06 PM
OK, now you're playing semantics games with me.
We don't want you to have any trepidation, either, but you will.
A June date isn't "vital", but it IS what got me interested in re-starting the protocol negotiations. Whatever. We certainly wouldn't want you to say you failed the test because you were nervous. You'll say that anyway, but it won't be because we pressured you into being tested in June, or whenever. You just let us know and we'll bend over backwards to accomodate you. You call the shots, Michael. By all means. Each and every comfort you require is yours for the asking.
I'll give Randi the test protocol in a couple of months, when we get closer to a time in which you think your level of trepidation is at an absolute minimum. I'm will NOT bother him with a protocol until then. It's utterly pointless.
And I'm NOT getting into this again until then. You've worn me out.
-Kramer, JREF]The widely held notion that I waffled on test dates was one of the many aggravations I was forced to endure in my dealings with the JREF Forum mob. If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.
If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment. Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer ‘facilitation’.
Let me know if you'd like any further information or commentary on the date waffling question. There is some detail I've left out in order to keep this from becoming even more overwhelming than what's presented here.
> Well Andy, here goes...I have told you repeatedly I am not interested in emails and suggested you write up a complete record like Kramers and post it somewhere to help get it out of your system. You have done exactly the opposite. Your irrational behaviour is exactly the same chatting to me as it was when dealing with JREF. I can only repeat my suggestion that you talk to someone you trust in your family to help with your confusion.
I had intended to read the top and tail and skip the emails but I read them. They seem to indicate the opposite to what you want to believe and again I can only suggest talking with someone you trust.
> These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs
> down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc,
> treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism
> from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal, fix the one or two points where they think you may be able to cheat and then to sit the test in a few weeks time. Everything else is a big red flag indicating that it is not going to happen. They have no interest in you as a person and no interest in getting involved with your magic rituals.
> He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I
> thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum
> for himself, but what the hay, no problem.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal. Nobody can submit one for you. You have now, at last, responded to their request for a revised proposal addressing their issues with the first. This is tangible progress. Only a lunatic would not agree with their own submitted proposal.
> He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as
> witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.There is nothing you posted to suggest this. JREFs actions suggest the opposite: an exchange where you said things that moved the test from being off as far JREF were concerned to being on. You put forward dates in June and August. They started working to the June dates and then you started to say no not the dates in June I gave but the ones in August. There can be only one way to read this. I repeat again: get someone you trust to talk to you about it.
> If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the
> Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic
> expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.For the people of JREF (Kramer and Randi) you were an annoying waste of time. What they wanted was for you to take the test and, hopefully, agree afterwards that it was fair. Your entertainment value was almost certainly zero.
For the posters on the JREFs threads there was a significant element of entertainment just as chatting here involves a significant element of entertainment. In addition, you drew interest because your behaviour was not typical of audiophiles/dowsers/flat-earthers/... that hold incorrect beliefs about matters in the scientific domain. Most are self confident and ignorant like the overwhelming majority of 'subjectivists' you see posting on this site. Most ordinary people find it hard to have much sympathy for such individuals and much as I would like to think parts of my recent exchanges with the likes of Morricab, Kerr and E-stat was just winding them up the truth is probably a bit more uncomfortable and I will soon stop posting because of it.
> If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the
> submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment.
> Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer
> ‘facilitation’.My interest is the same as it has always been in this thread, what I have repeatedly told you it is and what you have repeatedly ignored. You have a problem. Do something positive about it like talking to someone you trust or writing up the whole thing. Complaining about it in posts here is going to get you nowhere whether you get a sympathetic or an unsympathetic response.
I will answer any questions you have on the contents of this post if you have any but after that I would like to draw this thread to a close.
You're about as attentive as Kramer. And about as intellectually honest to boot. Not good in either case.First off, the proposal involving June dates was dismissed out of hand by JREF. It involved protocol elements completely different from my original and final proposals and the June element was simply the time proposed for preparation of discs while I would happen to be in Florida where JREF is located. It was NOT a proposed test date.
Also note, this option was submitted AFTER I had requested that my testing occur on, or after, August 1, 2005 and was never officially submitted. It was simply offered as an alternative and was NEVER taken seriously by JREF. Also, JREF NEVER even hinted that they thought a June test date was my desire because of this alternative proposal offer.
"There can be only one way to read this."
What a joke of a response.
Consider our discussion closed. If you'd ever like to review the matter in an objective, attentive, and honest manner, just let me know.
I read a lot of this brouhaha over the GSIC test on the JREF forum. It was educational to see just what an applicant has to put up with. What this has proven is that the JREF is a SCAM and a JOKE. It's a group of agenda-pushing zealots who insist on believing the world is flat. But they'll dangle a million dollar carrot and say "if you claim otherwise, prove it by walking the circumference of the earth, and then coming around behind.""Of course, before you do that, you gotta come up with a protocol we approve of. Good luck with that! 'Cos if we decide we simply don't like the **tone of your voice** during this process, out you go! And if you're foolish enough to accept the protocols that we approve of which puts the entire process in our favour? No problem, we'll mess you up when we get to the testing part!"
The JREF crew threw out more BS excuses to dismiss Wellfed's application (ie. "oh, now yer waffling!") than I could have ever possibly imagined. There's a reason why no one is able to come close to going through the extremely convoluted process of having a protocol accepted by Kramer and the JREF crew, and meeting the final test requirements. The reason is the JREF scammers have no intention of ever letting you do that. Why if they did, God forbid, you might actually win their "million dollar carrot". Assuming it even exists.
So negotiating in bad faith with applicants is how they protect their organization from going bust, both financially and ideologically. While they "pretend" to be accomodating to your application, just so they can make it all "look good" to the world, when they have no intention of ever allowing you to come close to their golden carrot. The whole "million dollar JREF" affair is no more than a carnival sideshow. There's no mistake that James Randi knows a lot about frauds and fakers. And that he's learned from them how to be one.
I've never seen anyone in our hobby more reasonable, pacific and appeasing than Wellfed, from all I've read. Even after the fact, after seeing and knowing that they dealt with him dishonestly and in bad faith, he's still writing things like "I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions". Yet they BANNED him from their forums anyway! You can't even criticize the JREF zealots on their forums, and point out what deceitful fraudsters they are, because they'll ban you and delete your messages. It's like trying to criticize Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly on their own shows. In fact there's a stronger connection to that, because they are the scientific community's "right wing extremist blowhards" One can see from every message on their forums (that are not from applicants), that this is an organization of intellectually dishonest pathological disbelievers who seriously need to get lives and do something productive for society. They do far more harm to science and progress than the good they think they are doing.
Having conversed with Wellfed over a period of days it became clear that he was irrational, no actual communication was taking place despite my prodding and the thread was stopped from my end. You will notice exactly the same thing happened in thread above with clifff. It also happened on JREF but over a longer period. I would suggest you are not doing him any favours by encouraging his problem.JREF is not a scam. The rules are clear but Wellfed did not to address them and instead wandered off with irrelevant concerns of his own.
JREF is not science. It is show business with a scientific flavour. If you do not like the show then turn over and watch the other side.
The Randi Challenge is baloney, plain and simple. If it wasn't, why would Kramer lie about not having contact with an applicant since the previous week when he had, in fact, responded to contact from that applicant the previous day? A most curious bunch of deception Andy. More curious yet, you guys can't see it, or it doesn't seem to bother you. What's the dealio? Talk about irrational, Kramer offers up deception after deception and you can neither see it OR care?Can't converse with me? Let's see how you and Posey fare on this topic. Now THAT would be entertainment.
BTW, you're the guy with the problem, and a serious one at that, believing a sick puppy like Kramer is NOT a healthy proposition. Don't believe me? Take on Posey. I fully expect you will stick your head between your legs and waddle off.
Only you were honest, only you know the truth. It is ALL his fault. Kramer has become a hate figure for you. WE have to believe you else WE don't want to know the truth.Gentle Jesus.
It won't wash, Wellfed!
I read everything at the time and it was obvious to me that you were full of BS and ducking a weaving like a spoilt brat.
And no, I am not going to try and dig out chapter and verse. It is your job to do that if you want to prove something.
It is all very sad, but until you can accept that you blew it big time I doubt whether it will let you rest.
This is all I would ever expect from anyone that cares to comment on the subject.
They are the foundation for both our opinions. This is why it is important to examine them and have them straight. Would you like to do this through private communications, or through the forums? The forums can be be a zoo, but I'm willing if you are. My preference however would be via private communications as there would be less distraction. The telephone would be a very useful tool as well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: