| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"So, if you were to say "boy 'item X' seems to work but I have no idea
how" Randi's callenge would not apply to you?" He doesn't test for the validity of the claimed cause, only that the claimed result can be demonstrated. For a perpetual motion machine that energy in is less then energy out, that a tice clock can be heard when in the circuit, that keys can be bent without explanation, that obvious physical disorders healed, or any number of such things. The test is designed to maximise every opportunity for the effect to be demonstrated. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Sep 2004 23:28:15 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
wrote in message ... I think one can see it in the light of the attitude of the patent office toward perpetual motion machines, don't bother us with the obvious that can have no basis in reality. Regarding "measurements of changes in the digital content to a cd disk: "No, I don't again. that's why I am asking and I repeat "Is the above measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate?"" I am not sure if I understand you. Bedini stuffs got no basis in reality? Correct. Oh...no wonder none want to rebut them. most likely E1 and E2 errors of Plextor black tray. Different principles at work, but agreed this is another set of dubious measurements which no one else has replicated. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... In another of [Randi's] pieces, stereophile was said to have entered into talks to test the claims for the Tice clock for which they had reviewed it as having made a positive audible effect. This is not correct. James Randi didn't contact anyone at Stereophile about testing the Tice TPT Clock (which on his website he originally referred to as the "Tate" Clock). You can find my comments on the Tice Clock and the Peter Belt devices at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/787/ and Stereophile's review coverage at http://www.stereophile.com//accessoryreviews/784 , while J. Gordon Holt's report on the Belt devices is published at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/ . John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
(John Atkinson) wrote in message ...
This is not correct. James Randi didn't contact anyone at Stereophile about testing the Tice TPT Clock (which on his website he originally referred to as the "Tate" Clock). I suppose that you are right since the quote from Randi.org says that Tice Clock was not mentioned when Randi contacted you: "Please refer to www.randi.org/jr/073004an.html#3 and go to the item "THE JREF MILLION IS SURELY WON" to learn of the items — the "Shakti Stones" and P.W.B. Electronics' "Electret Foil" and "Red X Pen" — that I am referring to here." So, we can probably assume that Randi has contacted your magazine about these other products including Shakti Stones? Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
"This is not correct. James Randi didn't contact anyone at Stereophile
about testing the Tice TPT Clock (which on his website he originally referred to as the "Tate" Clock)." In which case one might suggest he clarify, for which similar corrections are readily posted when he finds himself in error, these bits: http://www.randi.org/jr/072304willful.html#11 "I've had run-ins with Stereophile before. Refer to www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html. We discussed doing proper tests of their ridiculous claims for such devices as the "Tice Clock," a simple and definitive procedure that would certainly show the truth behind the nonsense -- but they opted out half-way into the discussion. I also pursued George Tice himself, and found that he kept running away from proper tests, even though I had top audio people and the very best equipment available to do the work. It was ever thus. Bold claims, then retreat. And they're never embarrassed, because they know that the suckers will continue to buy the products." He might have mixed recollections of proposed testing with the Tice interaction described at: http://www.randi.org/jr/04-20-2001.html The stereophile related url above pointing in part to: " That magazine, Stereophile, has published articles that make most pseudoscience look pale. The "Tate Clock," a regular Radio Shack digital clock treated with liquid nitrogen and a "secret process" to align electrons in the power supply (?) is only one of the products it tested and approved, as well as $1800 speaker cables marked with arrows to indicate in which direction the electricity should travel. But, as with all obsessions, these are items that afficionados simply must have, because they're expensive and "in."" The "tate" mention is easily a typo as he uses the correct spelling in many places over several articles. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
(John Atkinson) wrote in message ...
wrote in message ... In another of [Randi's] pieces, stereophile was said to have entered into talks to test the claims for the Tice clock for which they had reviewed it as having made a positive audible effect. This is not correct. James Randi didn't contact anyone at Stereophile about testing the Tice TPT Clock (which on his website he originally referred to as the "Tate" Clock). Maybe the messages were lost. In any event, now's your chance to get in touch with Randi, and arrange to collect your million bucks. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Lasse) wrote in message
... "Please refer to www.randi.org/jr/073004an.html#3 and go to the item "THE JREF MILLION IS SURELY WON" to learn of the items ? the "Shakti Stones" and P.W.B. Electronics' "Electret Foil" and "Red X Pen" ? that I am referring to here." So, we can probably assume that Randi has contacted your magazine about these other products including Shakti Stones? James Randi hasn't contacted me, or anyone else at Stereophile about these so-called "tweaks," which is confirmed when you look at the published list of writers Randi _has_ contacted. Yes, Wes Phillips who occasionally contributes to Stereophile is on Randi's list, but Wes hasn't actually written about any of these tweaks" for Stereophile. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
This seems to me a bit of a red herring, there are any number of products
regularly reported upon which would equally come under his intrest, that would equally be reason for a testing of claims and could be substituted. To quibble about which specific item he might have mentioned in what context and about which person wrote a report in what relationship to the magazine is irrelevant. Bring your observations about the magazine and whatever a history of interaction or not might have existed to his attention and make specific and clear the magazine's position about items which would come under his definition of dubious claims and proceed to discussions about confirmation testing. This should make a great series in the publication. James Randi hasn't contacted me, or anyone else at Stereophile about these so-called "tweaks," which is confirmed when you look at the published list of writers Randi _has_ contacted. Yes, Wes Phillips who occasionally contributes to Stereophile is on Randi's list, but Wes hasn't actually written about any of these tweaks" for Stereophile. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
How about 1 million reasons and a pr coup that can not be purchased at any
price in the audio biz. Given standard practice of reviewing products and pronouncing them to have this or that quality or not based on the exact kind of dubious proceedure and explanatory approach as that used in clocks, and stones, and wires, and a never ending list of similar material in every issue, his interest and your approach have everything in common. You say "'tis so" and he "tain't" and that is the thing publishing history could be made in a way never done before. Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; with a rapt and growing audience hanging unto every word as your methods come out on top. If your methods aren't in the same boat as those of astrology, esp, water dowsing, etc. then this is the perfect avenue by which to make it clear. Potential subscribers will have every reason to have demonstrated confidence in the spot on content of every review as proven by taking the measure of the most well known skeptic. ; as the check shows up in the mail. Forgive me, but I see no reason why it is up to me or to Stereophile to come to the help of the Amazing Randi as he flails around. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Turning tables was an advantage offered the magazine, Randi's test
methodology is generic and designed to offer the best chance for the claimant to demonstrate claims in a transparent manner. His methods to draw attention are as you describe, old showmen don't die... Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. I guess you are right. Randi _tries_ to turn tables, but other parties don't seem to be interested. Frankly, I can't figure any better way to persuade people to do blind tests than million dollars. I mean you can freely do the controlled blind tests without accepting any 'suspicious' challenge and publish the results. Still very few have made these tests. Only people like John Dunlavy come to mind and he might not have had enough resolution in his system. Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yup - and as a stage magician, Randi has more than a little of that helping!
:-) On 9/20/04 8:04 PM, in article , " wrote: Turning tables was an advantage offered the magazine, Randi's test methodology is generic and designed to offer the best chance for the claimant to demonstrate claims in a transparent manner. His methods to draw attention are as you describe, old showmen don't die... Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9/20/04 8:04 PM, in article , "Roscoe East"
wrote: (John Atkinson) wrote in message ... Forgive me, but I see no reason why it is up to me or to Stereophile to come to the help of the Amazing Randi as he flails around. But wouldn't you agree that one of the purposes of Stereophile is to come to the help of the thousands of gullible audiophiles as they flail around? Perhaps you are correct, but it has little do do with Randi's motives! Stereophile is an attempt at reviewing equipment and music - generally successful. Randi's mission is to try to educate the public and gain a little notoriety as well. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
Yup - and as a stage magician, Randi has more than a little of that helping! :-) On 9/20/04 8:04 PM, in article , " wrote: Turning tables was an advantage offered the magazine, Randi's test methodology is generic and designed to offer the best chance for the claimant to demonstrate claims in a transparent manner. His methods to draw attention are as you describe, old showmen don't die... Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. What I don't understand is why any proponent isn't rushing to collect the prize. At the very least they all know the tricks of the trade; and if they "really can" hear these differences why can't they just DO it? Some seem to be implying that sensitive people can be tricked into "un-hearing" real differences. That's NOT what I get by reading the manufacturers literature. If wire/amp/bit/tweak sound IS audible why are people arguing about the circumstances? It's simply another case of "I've got the fastest car in the valley ..... but I can't prove it if you are going to actually race the cars or use a stopwatch." |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/20/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: Yup - and as a stage magician, Randi has more than a little of that helping! :-) On 9/20/04 8:04 PM, in article , " wrote: Turning tables was an advantage offered the magazine, Randi's test methodology is generic and designed to offer the best chance for the claimant to demonstrate claims in a transparent manner. His methods to draw attention are as you describe, old showmen don't die... Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. What I don't understand is why any proponent isn't rushing to collect the prize. At the very least they all know the tricks of the trade; and if they "really can" hear these differences why can't they just DO it? Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? Some seem to be implying that sensitive people can be tricked into "un-hearing" real differences. That's NOT what I get by reading the manufacturers literature. If wire/amp/bit/tweak sound IS audible why are people arguing about the circumstances? It's simply another case of "I've got the fastest car in the valley ..... but I can't prove it if you are going to actually race the cars or use a stopwatch." If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
" But wouldn't you agree that one of the purposes of Stereophile is to
come to the help of the thousands of gullible audiophiles as they flail around? Perhaps you are correct, but it has little do do with Randi's motives! Stereophile is an attempt at reviewing equipment and music - generally successful. Randi's mission is to try to educate the public and gain a little notoriety as well." Stereophile does reviews and positions itself as being a source of experience on the reader's behalf through the ears of those doing the reviews. This whole issue is one of who reviews the claims of the reviewers as to the validity and empirical use of their claims. This is most important because their reports generally fly in the face of a body of testing by listening alone which fails to support them or their methods,ie. when tested the reviewer's methods and perceptions fail them. Randi offers them a chance to redeem themselves as to those claims and/or continue to confirm or not the benchmark now set by the body of prior testing. His motives and/or personality flare doesn't enter into this question. All the tap dancing thus far on his challenge has been in the area of him and not the confirmation of the reviewer's claims, which his flare makes handy as a diversion of attention, which Randi as a majician understands well as do those whose intrest is marketing/publishing about tweeky products. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
With regard to dubious claims and testing validity:
"Only people like John Dunlavy come to mind and he might not have had enough resolution in his system." I ran across one of his testing efforts recently again. Because his interest was wire generally he had three exotic cables on hand for the test. This was sighted and there was genral concensus that either one or the other of the exotic wires produced the best sound, with expressions of the qualities described for each being easily and readily provided. If I recall correctly, these were people in the audio biz doing the listening. Only at the conclusion of the "test" did he reveal that the same wire was used in all instances when one or another of the three were said to be used. This test requires nothing about resolution while clearly highlighting the very specific errors in perception that mars all human testing where it is not excluded by blinding. It also mirrors perfectly the "testing" situation of stereophile and similar and gives all reason that one could ask as to why their "reviews" provide little or nothing on which the reader can rely; with the exception of the technical info offered for the products. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let
me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 21 Sep 2004 00:30:53 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: Only people like John Dunlavy come to mind and he might not have had enough resolution in his system. Interesting comment, since many recording studios seem to find that Dunlavy speakers have adequate resolution for their needs. Well, English is not my native language so apparently I failed in my attempt of sarcasm  John Dunlavy used SC-IV and SC-V tryingto hear difference between DAL-Z6 and 12 AWG ZIP cord and failed. But surely most cable reviewers have at least SC-VI's or better? Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...
Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? Paranormal is not a clearly defined word. There seem to be no scientific evidence Shakti Stones or Tice Clock affecting sound. So, sound of these products could be defined paranormal. James Randi has personally stated that anyone, who can hear if Shakti Stones are used or not can claim the prize: "Folks, all you have to do to win a million dollars, is to be able to tell when the Shakti Stones are in use, or are NOT in use!" http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...neral&n=341741 His other posts to Audio Asylum: http://tinyurl.com/4bs5s If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it. Oh dear? You are wealthy man, aren't you? Because there is already a $10000 amp challenge by Richard Clark. For me even $10000 would be good money for one day effort. http://tinyurl.com/6s92v Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 23 Sep 2004 00:02:52 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 21 Sep 2004 00:30:53 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: Only people like John Dunlavy come to mind and he might not have had enough resolution in his system. Interesting comment, since many recording studios seem to find that Dunlavy speakers have adequate resolution for their needs. Well, English is not my native language so apparently I failed in my attempt of sarcasm Fairy nuff! John Dunlavy used SC-IV and SC-V trying to hear difference between DAL-Z6 and 12 AWG ZIP cord and failed. But surely most cable reviewers have at least SC-VI's or better? That would be irony, no? :-) We have yet to see *any* published cable reviewer back up their 'night and day' difference claims in blind testing, even on equipment of the highest resolution. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 23 Sep 2004 00:03:43 GMT, (Lasse) wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote in message ... Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? Paranormal is not a clearly defined word. There seem to be no scientific evidence Shakti Stones or Tice Clock affecting sound. So, sound of these products could be defined paranormal. James Randi has personally stated that anyone, who can hear if Shakti Stones are used or not can claim the prize: "Folks, all you have to do to win a million dollars, is to be able to tell when the Shakti Stones are in use, or are NOT in use!" http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...neral&n=341741 His other posts to Audio Asylum: http://tinyurl.com/4bs5s If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it. Oh dear? You are wealthy man, aren't you? Because there is already a $10000 amp challenge by Richard Clark. For me even $10000 would be good money for one day effort. http://tinyurl.com/6s92v Since you quote me in that post, I should point out that I am a contributor to the $5,000 'cable challenge' pool which has indeed been extended to amplifiers (and has stood unchallenged for more than five years now), and I have a standing offer of £1,000 (I'm not as rich as Randi!) to anyone in the UK who can 'hear' cables or amplifiers under level-matched blind conditions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/20/2004 8:36 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: B&D wrote: Yup - and as a stage magician, Randi has more than a little of that helping! :-) On 9/20/04 8:04 PM, in article , " wrote: Turning tables was an advantage offered the magazine, Randi's test methodology is generic and designed to offer the best chance for the claimant to demonstrate claims in a transparent manner. His methods to draw attention are as you describe, old showmen don't die... Your reservations about him, the prize, and his approach are perfect for turning the tables; I don't think he turns the tables - I *do* respect him for what his purported goals are - I just don't like the sensational methods. What I don't understand is why any proponent isn't rushing to collect the prize. At the very least they all know the tricks of the trade; and if they "really can" hear these differences why can't they just DO it? Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? This objection was soundly refuted the *first* time you posted it in this thread, Scott. Why do you repeat it? Lest you be tempted to post it a third time, and so there can be no question what Randi ahs and has not offered, here is Mr. Randi's offer, as it relates to audio quackery, verbatim from his site. Please note his explicit references to the prize, and to 'eligible material', and to Shakti Stones: // THE JREF MILLION IS SURELY WON Reader Phil Ray, a medical research analyst in Lexington, Kentucky, tells us about some more "high-end" audio flummery he's discovered: 'Your mention of the "Tice clock" and other audiophile snake-oil devices got me digging around on the internet for more. I ran across a couple of good sites, but the one that takes the cake is www.belt.demon.co.uk/index.html. Apparently, according to this site, you can improve all kinds of audio devices or recording media performance just by writing "O.K." on them ? or a piece of tape stuck on them ? with a "specially treated" marker pen. Writing "NO" makes things sound much worse. There is much more available from "P.W.B. Electronics" as well, that could be eligible for the JREF Prize.' This is the fabulous "Red 'x' Pen" that you can have for a mere US$87! And yes, there sure was more eligible material. For example, I found a glowing review of some mystical P.W.B. sticky foil on that site. It claimed that tiny little scraps of it could improve a wide spectrum of our daily lives: These shiny little devil-strips are supposed to work their effects just by placing them on pretty much anything in the system ? or the house, for that matter. Suggested application included batteries in remote controls, clocks, and calculators, mains plugs on amplifiers, CD players, tuners, televisions, computers, even fax machines, light switches, transformers, auxiliary power sources, central-heating radiators or air-conditioning units, even equipment casings, lids, and LED displays. Here's an example of how versatile the wondrous P.W.B. Electronics Electret Foil is, as explained by Mrs. May Belt, one of the promoters, retailers, and producers of P.W.B. products. They had been experimenting with improving the sound of their system by applying a scrap of this foil to a CD: 'During one set of listening experiments, we had a short coffee break. In the listening room was a small wooden table which had had something spilt on it, causing a nasty stain. Peter decided to treat this stain and applied a chemical to it. No success ? the stain was just as bad. Peter shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh well, we will just have to live with the stain, at least I have tried to remove it." After the short coffee break we returned to the listening tests. The sound was dreadful, it was absolutely appalling! Peter tried everything he knew but could not get the previous "good" sound back. He knew that the only thing he had done in the past half-hour was to apply a chemical to the stain on the small table. He took the table out of the room and listened again. The "good" sound was back! With the table returned to the room, the sound was dreadful again. Peter remarked, "There is no way we can carry on with our listening tests with that table in the room," so the table was banished to the garage. We had no explanation for what had happened but we remembered this incident because it was so surprising and startling. It was a few months later that I happened to be reading an article ? an article on plants! In the middle of this article it stated "and when the (???) plant is under stress, it produces the chemical ????" ? this was the chemical we had applied to the small table!!! I read this article out to Peter and we looked at each other. Here was the chemical we had used being described as a "stress chemical." Peter then began to reason out, "I wonder if it was us (human beings) who were sensing this "stress" chemical and going under tension ? and this was the reason why the "sound" was perceived as "dreadful."' I'd find it difficult to comment here, especially since my eyes are full of tears from laughing. Are these simply raving loonies, or is it a very unfunny joke? I wish it were a joke. I found a glowing review of this magic foil at Greg Weaver's April 1999 Rainbow Foil review and immediately wrote him at : Mr. Weaver: I've been forwarded some comments you made on the "P.W.B. Electronics Electret Foil" and wished to inform you that if you are able to repeat your experiments ? double-blind ? you would certainly win the JREF million-dollar prize as described at www.randi.org/research/index.html and www.randi.org/research/challenge.html. Are you interested? I'm not going to expect a response, of course, but I'll inform you if I get one. Phil has mo I looked up "Shakti Stones," too, at http://www.shakti-innovations.com/index.html. They have the added benefit of having an "East Indian" name. They not only make your stereo sound better, but another version improves engine performance and increases horsepower in your car! I'm so glad to live in the 21st Century ? an era when wonders never cease! The Shakti Stones, fortunately, don't even have to be connected to your sound system, but can be simply placed nearby, to produce wonderful improvements! The instructions simply say: Use of the Stones could not be simpler, simply place them near power supplies, components or CD/DVD/SACD players, the nearer the transformer the better. Incredible! One reviewer, "expert" Dick Clark of Audio Journal, ended up with eleven of these stones ($2,530 worth!) placed all over his system, and he raves about the improvements! Phil, I'm an equal-opportunity kind of guy, so I sent this inquiry ? via both e-mail and postal mail ? to a Mr. Mintz, who had also very enthusiastically endorsed his Shakti stones: I understand that you have found wonderful results from the use of "Shakti Stones" in conjunction with your sound system! To amplify your delight, I inform you that if you can successfully perform a double-blind test of these stones, as you have described, you can win the million-dollar prize offered by this Foundation. See details at www.randi.org/research/index.html and www.randi.org/research/challenge.html. I await your response with great interest. Now, Weaver and Mintz may or may not respond. I'll keep you updated on the matter. Consider: if they do not respond, why did they choose that option? Several possibilities present themselves: Maybe they now find that they were self-deceived. Perhaps they are afraid to test their firmly-stated convictions on the matter. They might be independently wealthy and thus disinterested in the million-dollar prize. It's even possible that these people are fictional inventions of the vendors of these hi-tech advances in science. There must be some reason. I am sending out 11 letters to audio reviewers who endorsed this thing, making the same offer. " -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regarding a prize for amp identification:
"I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever." Richard Clark is the person and his prize was the topic of at least one thread within the past year here. As I recall without looking at the archives, he wants level matching, no clipping of either amp and other such common sense things which might give an amp away and don't relate to the basic question. He also had some stipulations to guard against someone using a ringer amp whose freq or other response had been modified to make it obvious, in which case he proposed using an eq on his amp to match the output of the other amp. Another person who posts here has also had considerable experience in the amp testing area and has yet to fine someone who can pass the test beyond a level similar to guessing, but no doubt he can speak for himself. An older yamaha and then current nelsom pass labs amp were the subject of one such test, no luck; just to provide a reference for your intrest using an amp of that brand. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel)
wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 9/23/2004 5:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 23 Sep 2004 00:03:43 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? Paranormal is not a clearly defined word. There seem to be no scientific evidence Shakti Stones or Tice Clock affecting sound. So, sound of these products could be defined paranormal. James Randi has personally stated that anyone, who can hear if Shakti Stones are used or not can claim the prize: "Folks, all you have to do to win a million dollars, is to be able to tell when the Shakti Stones are in use, or are NOT in use!" http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...neral&n=341741 His other posts to Audio Asylum: http://tinyurl.com/4bs5s If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it. Oh dear? You are wealthy man, aren't you? Because there is already a $10000 amp challenge by Richard Clark. For me even $10000 would be good money for one day effort. http://tinyurl.com/6s92v Since you quote me in that post, I should point out that I am a contributor to the $5,000 'cable challenge' pool which has indeed been extended to amplifiers (and has stood unchallenged for more than five years now), and I have a standing offer of £1,000 (I'm not as rich as Randi!) to anyone in the UK who can 'hear' cables or amplifiers under level-matched blind conditions. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Why not repeat your own amp tests that wrought positive results and collect the money? |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Sep 2004 14:09:21 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 9/23/2004 5:06 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 23 Sep 2004 00:03:43 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: (S888Wheel) wrote in message ... Simple. There is no chance of collecting the money. No one is claiming their product is is paranormal. If per chance any of the products Randi is targeting were to make an audible difference there wold be a nonparanormal explination for that difference. Why bother? Paranormal is not a clearly defined word. There seem to be no scientific evidence Shakti Stones or Tice Clock affecting sound. So, sound of these products could be defined paranormal. James Randi has personally stated that anyone, who can hear if Shakti Stones are used or not can claim the prize: "Folks, all you have to do to win a million dollars, is to be able to tell when the Shakti Stones are in use, or are NOT in use!" http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...neral&n=341741 His other posts to Audio Asylum: http://tinyurl.com/4bs5s If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it. Oh dear? You are wealthy man, aren't you? Because there is already a $10000 amp challenge by Richard Clark. For me even $10000 would be good money for one day effort. http://tinyurl.com/6s92v Since you quote me in that post, I should point out that I am a contributor to the $5,000 'cable challenge' pool which has indeed been extended to amplifiers (and has stood unchallenged for more than five years now), and I have a standing offer of £1,000 (I'm not as rich as Randi!) to anyone in the UK who can 'hear' cables or amplifiers under level-matched blind conditions. -- Why not repeat your own amp tests that wrought positive results and collect the money? Interesting that no one else has picked that one up. It would indeed be interesting to revisit that test series, with the rather more rigorous pre-conditions of the full challenge. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
Since you quote me in that post, I should point out that I am a contributor to the $5,000 'cable challenge' pool which has indeed been extended to amplifiers (and has stood unchallenged for more than five years now), and I have a standing offer of £1,000 (I'm not as rich as Randi!) to anyone in the UK who can 'hear' cables or amplifiers under level-matched blind conditions. I hadn't heard of that extension of cable challenge, interesting. Maybe a short summary would be in order. Known audio challenges: $1.000.000 Shakti Stones, Tice Clock, etc. (James Randi) $10.000 Amplifiers (Richard Clark) $5.000 Cables and amplifiers (RAHE pool) ~$1,800 Cables (Stewart Pinkerton) Also, if Randi offers money for hearing the effect of Shakti Stones, then we can assume that other sceptic organisations might do the same: ~$57.000 Australian sceptics challenge for extraordinary powers ~$14.000 Australian sceptics spotter fee: You only have to _find_ a person who has extraordinary powers, ie. can hear Shakti Stones! ~$10.000 Finnish Skepsis challenge I might have missed other challenges but even these challenges could pay off ~$1.100.000 for that person who hears Shakti Stones, amps and cables. I must say that situation is now extremely interesting since Randi is involved with his million. Lasse Ukkonen |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Steely Dan The Absolute Sound | High End Audio | |||
| In search of the perfect Home Audio Appliance (or something like it) | Tech | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| AC Power Conditioner (Cont.) | High End Audio | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
