James Randi on audio equipment

So, is this Randy guy willing to pony up USD1,000,000 if I can't hear the difference between a portable boom box versus my reference system? If so, where do I sign up?

Or perhaps he'd like to take the amp section from a portable am radio and compare it to some Audio Research gear? How open ended is his offer with regards to what kinds of components are acceptable to compare in the DBT?

 

This illustrates something that I find fascinating about reproduced sound. I've found audiophiles (defined for this purpose as people who can hear differences between components) who clearly hear differences between cables, and I find audiophiles who clearly don't hear differences between cables. Each group seem to be honest in their approach and their assessments, with no axe to grind.

So do I! I'm quite happy to spend money on cables, but a greater affect than with components? I think that "nutcase" may be the right description!

 

Actually his $2000 amp developed a fault not so long ago and due to the frustration of not having an amplifier he went and bought a Krell FBP600 but this time was actually quite happy. FTR his 2k amp was a very humble (and quite antique) Perreaux PMF2150B. It's a simple design based on the original Hitachi power mosfet application notes, but was a warm and fairly sweet sounding SS amp. He still wants to get it fixed so it's there as a back-up.
BTW, he now needs to be carefull when walking through the listening room because the FBP600 sits on the floor and is quite a substantial hazzard. A couple of times I've seen him walk into it. He obviously lets out an expletive but follows it with the line "Strike me sighted". He's quite a funny guy.

 

My point is that if you care about sonic differences enough in recordings, you should also care about sonic differences in audio playback gear. Do both right (selecting the best recording and assembling the best possible playback chain for your budget) and you enjoy a great experience.

Isn't this why most of us are here on Steve Hoffman's board?

One might argue that some amps don't sound better or different than others but to say that the high end business overall is completely built on lies and high end brands don't add value by presenting more faithful sonics is very naive.

 

Lee, once again you've put words in my mouth!

Where did I say I don't "care about sonic differences in audio playback gear"? Just because I want to be sure differences exist doesn't mean I don't care about said differences!

Please, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, Lee. I never said those things. Some things are built on solid science/technology. Some high end components do 'add value'. But a lot *is* built on lies! And many 'high end' components *don't* 'add value'! It isn't all or nothing, though.

"High end audio" can indeed sound better. But nothing says it has to! And if it does sound better, it should be easy enough to tell, right?

 

Um, ya gotta read the offer. He's specifically talking about the claims of some of the people selling hi-fi stuff.

 

I can't imagine what your purpose must be to use such a terrible definition of audiophile. An audiophile is a person who likes audio. Period.

 

audiophile n. (1951): a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction. -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition.

 

P guess the lock has come off this thread and it is open to discussion again so i will address a few things here

"You never said that"? What exactly did you mean when you said the following?

" The purpose of the final round is to make sure that the proper controls and conditions are being observered, and to make sure that the results are held to a higher statistical standard than the first round"

Looks to me like you are saying the JREF will move the bar on what is accepted as a positive result. There is only one standard in science.

"Do you think they should have exactly one A/B trial...50% odds."

Of course not. I think they should use accepted standards, always.


" Heck, if two people show up to try, there's a darned good chance that one gets to take home a million. It's not changing the rules of statistical analysis."

If they move the bar between the preliminary round and the final round as *you* claim they do then it is.


"It also allows different regional groups to get involved and take the burden off the JREF, who can't possibly test every silly claimant. It's a screening process, and it makes perfect sense. Hey, if you can beat odds of a few thousand to one, maybe you really do have the gift, come here and we'll run the same test and be sure, under our personal control."

Fine. I never expressed any problems with a screening round per se.


"I had to win the city spelling bee before I could go on to state. Nobody changed the rules, it's just a progression."

The the standards for a positive result are changed between the first round and the money round as *you* said then they are indeed changing the rules. The organization of spelling bees has no relevance,



"The real test is the second round, the first is just to weed out those who can't even pretend to be able to compete. Having a preliminary screening process doesn't do anything to invalidate the test."


I never said it did.


" Not in a million years could I convince anyone of your mindset anything about my point of view. That's one of the reasons that these types of discussions are discouraged here; they just go round and round."


I think this is typical of the attitude I see on the JREF boards and from Randi himself. *My mindset* is exactly what? I thought the folks at the JREF didn't believe in mind reading. ;-)
I agree that biases are often at work when people listen to tweaks.We live with bias affects in all of our subjective impressions. What strikes me as ironic is that some people fail to see the same problem when a million dollars is on the line for the JREF. So let me explain my mind set in as clearly as I possibly can. I am a strong advocate of science and proper use of scientific protocols in scientific research. I am every bit as skeptical of claims of paranormal as anyone at the JREF. I part ways with those skeptics in that I have no interest in attacking other people for simply having beliefs that differ from mine. I don't investigate things in order to make others wrong. IMO this is what drives a lot of the folks at the JREF. Further, I think the million dollar bounty is simply too high. That kind of money will IMO inevitably corrupt the process. There is tremendous inentive for either side to *win.* When it is about winning it is not about impartial investigation. And as for bias effects, i believe they are real but i don't believe one needs to do bias controlled tests to have a subjective opinion about something. I was thinking about going to the Munch Box today and get a hickory burger. It is my favorite burger in the world. can I have that opinion without having done bias controlled taste tests? In any responses to this question please avoid making the *mistake* of claiming obvious differences don't require bias controls. It is very well documented that biases affect preferences even when large undeniable differences exist.


"Apparently all of these manufacturers who make these products have better things to do with their lives, as they don't want free publicity that money could never, ever buy."

Not all publicity is good publicity. Fighting with the JREF doesn't look like good publicity to me. Perhaps, just maybe, that is what these manufacturers are thinking as well.

Hopefully this will help you understand my skeptisim of the challenge and the JREF in general and my beliefs about science, subjective impressions in our daily lives and bias effects.

 

Nope. The true positive result is the final round. The first round is just a baby test; a screening. Having a basic dumbed-down screening isn't monkeying with stats.

Repeat after me. THE FIRST ROUND IS THE SCREENING NOT 'THE' TEST.

Scenario:

Applicant: Hi! I'm a dowser, and I can detect gold coins hidden in opaque containers! Give me a million dollars!
JREF: OK, we've got a protocol where if you can correctly detect whether the container holds the coin, 85 times out of a hundred, you will have proved your ability.
Applicant: Great! I can do it.
JREF: Wonderful. OK, first we're going to send you to a little screening in your area where we'll do a simpler, easier trial where you identify the coin only 15 times out of 20!
Applicant: WHOA, NOT FAIR, YOU ARE CHANGING THE BAR! Cheaters!

Come on!

(Alternate version: Hi! I'm an audiophile and I can identify if a CD has been treated with a Golden Sound Intelligent Chip!)

Making fools of your critics is always good publicity.

Could you please use the quote function for each block of quoted text instead of using double-quotes? Your posts are very hard to read!

 

I noticed you didn't answer the relevant question.

"You never said that"? What exactly did you mean when you said the following?

" The purpose of the final round is to make sure that the proper controls and conditions are being observered, and to make sure that the results are held to a higher statistical standard than the first round"



"Making fools of your critics is always good publicity."

That *is* the jist of my issue with the JREF and it's followers. "Making fools of your critics ( in effect, people with different beliefs) is always good publicity" seems to be the driving motivation of this group. That is not the sort of motivation that promotes fair investigation.

When all you have in the end is a public mudslinging contest no one benefits from that publicity.

 

Uh, yeah, that's because the final round is the test. Don't know what else to tell you, and I don't see what you are getting at here. Having an earlier round that is a screening in no way invalidates the actual test to win the money.

It's just common sense. If I made GSICs or electret foil or Bedini Clarifiers or special wooden blocks for interconnects, and I could pick them out in a blind test, it is a no-lose proposition to take the challenge. You either win the challenge (collecting a million bucks) or you get publicly robbed. Either way, you validate your product, you shame the skeptical community, and your product sales will go through the roof. These companies are businesses. The fact that nobody who makes such products will take such a challenge is very telling. It is obvious that they cannot identify when their own products have been used.

 

OK let me make this as simple as possible. does the JREF use the scientifially accepted standard of 95% probablitiy in determining a positive result? If they do it should be the same in the preliminary round as well as the final round. That would contradict *your* claim that they use a higher standard in the second round. That would be a problem. But more importantly, if they are using something other than the accepted scientific standard for the final round the challenge is plain and simply bogus. So do they use it or not?

As for your take in the value of "making fool of your critics" and "shaming the skeptical community" I can only suggest you reread what I said about the nature and value of attacking other people because of differences in beliefs.

 

Scott,

I'm not a go-between for you and the JREF. Since you are increasingly interested in more and more detail of their specific methods, I encourage you to sign up for their forum at http://forums.randi.org/ where they will be happy to answer all of your questions. They welcome new members including those who disagree with them (they are not afraid to have their beliefs attacked).

If there's any harm in having a somewhat easier screening for a tougher challenge, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure you'll find some way to argue it.

I stand by my claim that no maker of such esoteric products can identify when they have been used. I strongly encourage them to prove me wrong. I'm sorry if they are too delicate to deal with those who may attack their beliefs.

 

Works for me, but your references escape me.

I'm available via PM or email to discuss anything.

 

Who?

I haven't been posting, but I've been reading.

 

"Scott,

I'm not a go-between for you and the JREF."

You made claims about their standards. were you speculating or do you know? If you know why is it so difficult to answer a simple question as to what those standards actually are?

" Since you are increasingly interested in more and more detail of their specific methods, I encourage you to sign up for their forum at http://forums.randi.org/ where they will be happy to answer all of your questions. They welcome new members including those who disagree with them (they are not afraid to have their beliefs attacked)."

Maybe I am just interested in the validity of your claims. Either you know what you are talking about here or you don't. If you do then the question would be very easy to answer. I had already joined the forums and chose to walk away because of the attitudes.

"If there's any harm in having a somewhat easier screening for a tougher challenge, I don't know what it is, but I'm sure you'll find some way to argue it."

Are you saying now that the first round offers a lower standard than the accepted 95% probability? If that is the case, while I think it is a bad idea I don't think it is unfair to applicant at all. If you don't know what the harm is I'll explain it to you. It increases the chances of obviously bogus claims going to the final test and increases the possibility of controversy between the parties. More and more it seems this is something the JREF wants.

"I stand by my claim that no maker of such esoteric products can identify when they have been used. I strongly encourage them to prove me wrong. I'm sorry if they are too delicate to deal with those who may attack their beliefs."


I stand by my claim about the motives and attitudes of Randi and his friends at the JREF and my belief that the size of the bounty ultimately make the challenge something other than an attempt at uncovering the truth about claims. I'll ask the question again. Does the JREF use the accepted standard of 95% probability for determining a positive result? If not the challenge is a sham. Plain and simple. It's a very simple yes or no question.

 

It seems to me the effect would be just the opposite. If there's only one round, there's no "pre-screening" and the chances of bogus claims could increase. By adding a second round, fewer bogus claims could make it through.

 

Sorry. I will call it a day on this thread. But Steve, could be everyone else is at work. The life of a makeup artist is one of down time between jobs.

 

Scott,

Since Steve is dropping a hint, why not sign up for an account at JREF and we can discuss it there! Please! My name there is 'Beer Monkey'.

 

Perhaps Michael can answer better than I can, but it seems pretty open ended to me:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

And:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that there not be a preliminary round. I am only suggesting that it is a bad idea for either round to deviate from the scientificlly accpeted standards for a positive result.