| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
James Randi gets clarified on audio biz
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4
As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. The only surprise in all of this is that it has taken so long for someone to expose this sort of snake oil by someone with a fairly high profile. When will people get the reality of if you expect to hear it you will, even if it's not there. The notion that somebody would even TRY to sell a device that demagnetizes a non-magnetic medium is only slightly less astounding than the idea that someone would actually buy one. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 snip...snip If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do is to crank up the volume. But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one over the other over a long period of time. Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can tell from the screen. Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely) 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test...... (and read the next line) 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months) 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer . When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? Rgds. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chelvam" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 snip...snip If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do is to crank up the volume. But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one over the other over a long period of time. Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can tell from the screen. Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely) 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test...... (and read the next line) 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months) 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer . When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? Rgds. If I had a legitimate product, yes. If I were Bedini, or Shakti, no. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chelvam wrote:
wrote in message ... http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 snip...snip If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do is to crank up the volume. But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one over the other over a long period of time. Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can tell from the screen. Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) Why on earth would you expect anything else, with JREF's money at stake? Are you suggesting that they *shouldn't* have approval of the testing conditions etc? Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? For $1 million, if I was sure that my claim was true, certainly. Btw, people *have* taken up the challenge, in other areas of quackery. So far, no one ahs claimed the prize. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chelvam" wrote in
: wrote in message ... http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 snip...snip If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do is to crank up the volume. But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one over the other over a long period of time. Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can tell from the screen. Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) Keyword: helping. Would you permit someone to hand out $1mil of your cash and you had no say in the matter what-so-ever? I certainly would want to have some say in the matter. 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) Keywords: applicant *and* JREF 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely) Why would it matter. Randi wants to makes sure that failures are published. 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test...... (and read the next line) 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months) Why would Randi allow someone to repeatedly waste his time and the time of his staff? I certainly would not want my time wasted. 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer . When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? Rgds. Sure. Why not? It is a fair test and if the effect is real, there should be no problem in duplicating it over and over again. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chelvam" wrote in message
... Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely) 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test...... (and read the next line) 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months) 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer . When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? You bet! If I was confident of my ability to detect improvements from my device, yes--I most certainly would apply for the prize. Indeed, the only downside of the JREF agreement is that I would have to pay the costs of running the test. Believe me, the publicity advantage of passing even the preliminary test is easily worth the cost. Norm Strong |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? Yes! If I was certain of my claim. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
From:
Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
... From: Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Please supply some documentation on this. Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect can be reliably detected. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 9/10/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Please supply some documentation on this. I don't have any. My father told me about it years ago. He was a hard core fan of Randi. I have no reason to doubt what he said. Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. Nothing in the challenge regarding Shakti stones or the Bedini clarifier requires proof of paranormal activity, only that in an ABX DBT their effect can be reliably detected. Perhaps you missed this.http://www.randi.org/research/index.html It is a general requirement that it be a test of paranormal activity. That is why the money remains safe and any attempt to take this challenge is a waste of time, unless you do believe in magic. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Please supply some documentation on this. You might look at: http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm The claim that Dr. Arthur Lintgen could identify all non-obscure post-Beetoven orchestral music from looking at LP groove patterns is extraordinary, but does not involve any paranormal claim. Arthur Lintgen was able to identify all recordings in the test with the exception of an Alice Cooper record and a spoken word record which were used as controls. Peter. -- |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , B&D
wrote: Seems kind of like Ripley;s Believe it or Not - but if the guy can do it - I hope he got his $1M from Randi. As someone who is a self styled representative of intellectual honesty - it would be a very bad thing if he didn't pay off after accepting a challenge. Randi did not pay, and is not obligated to. There are several reasons why. First, the test was conducted in 1982, at which time the $1M Challenge did not exist. Its precursor, the $10,000 Challenge (*) probably did exist at that time, but that brings us to: Second, it wasn't a Challenge test. That requires an applicant to go through a somewhat formal process. Randi was involved only because Time Magazine asked him to test whether the man could do what he said he could do. Third, the man at no time claimed any paranormal powers. He explained exactly how he did it, and it was quite mundane. The prize isn't intended to be won by people with amazing but ordinary abilities. If somebody had applied for the prize on the basis that they could do the same thing, I expect that Randi's charity would reject the application since there isn't even a claim of paranormal abilities, much less a reason to think such would be involved. (In the case of the Bedini Clarifier, one might argue that the company behind it isn't making paranormal claims, but from Randi's point of view -- and mine -- such a device would have to have true paranormal aspects to actually do anything other than lighten buyers' wallets, and therefore it is appropriate for Randi to make noise about the $1M being available to anybody who can actually demonstrate that the gadget works.) (*) Originally, Randi simply carried around a blank personal check for $10,000 and advertised that he would sign it over to anybody who could prove to his satisfaction the existence of paranormal powers, etc. During the 1990s, this was superseded by a system of pledges; individuals pledged to award $100, $1000, or more. In the late 1990s, as the total pledge amount rose towards $1M, one or more unknown donors gave $1M in real money to use for the challenge, after which the pledgers were released from their obligations. Randi's personal $10K is still at stake, however. The $1M is not Randi's money to do with as he wishes. It is held in a special trust account, and, if I recall correctly, cannot be paid out in any circumstance other than a Challenge win, though Randi's nonprofit (the James Randi Educational Foundation) does get to skim off the interest on the account to help run itself. (This is quite appropriate since part of the JREF's expenses include administering the Challenge.) The Challenge mechanisms are set up such that passing the final formal test will automatically result in payout no matter what Randi (or the JREF) thinks. So far, however, no applicant has ever been able to pass even the preliminary screening test in which no prize money is at stake. -- Tim |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm? Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is apparently thin enough not to bother Randi. Why should it? His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement are audible...or even due to the device under test. "I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge," says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary). -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm? http://skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability." Stephen |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Sep 2004 00:41:17 GMT, MINe 109
wrote: In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability." Indeed - I was around at the time of the claims and reading the magazines, and I saw this in a couple of them including, if my memory serves me, Stereo Review. So far as I could see Mr. Lintgen never at any time claimed anything like a paranormal ability. He merely claimed that the easily visible variations in the grooves of an LP record gave him enough information to reliably identify the recordings based on his previous knowlege. His passing the test was not therefore a demonstration of any "paranormal" ability nor did he ever make any claim that it was. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 wrote:
In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: S888Wheel wrote: I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Care to confirm? http://skepdic.com/comments/psydet.html According to this, the money wasn't collected because the 'vinyl reader,' Arthur G. Lintgen, didn't claim "paranormal ability." The prize was never sought by Dr. Lintgen, nor offered by Randi to him if he could demonstrate his talent. According to newpaper accounts, it was Time magazine that asked Randi to investigate Lintgen's claim...essentially to make sure that a controlled test was used, and as a guard against fraud or 'magic'. for Randi's own response, see http://www.randi.org/jr/110102.html -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 9/10/2004 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 9/9/2004 8:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 As mentioned here before in a previous challenge to tweeky audio biz claims, Randi goes this time for the : Bedini Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier http://www.randi.org/jr/082704gluton.html#4 If you recall, he has a 1 million dollar prize if the audio tweeky crowd can demonstrate their product to be real with regard to their claims: http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8 In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Gee, this sounds awfully like a hazily-recalled anecdote. Anecdote, yes. Hazily- recalled, no. My father, a hard core Randi fan told me about it. I remember it because of who the guy was. Care to confirm? Not really. Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. The line between 'pseudoscientific' and 'paranormal' is apparently thin enough not to bother Randi. Irrelevant. If a tweak works it affects the signal. If it affects the signal it isn't a paranormal phenomenon. If it isn't a paranormal phenomenon it doesn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Hence, any attempt to take this challenge will ultimately be a waste of time regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any given tweek. Why should it? His website banner proclaims the site as 'an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and supernatural. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. But of course, not all differences from measurement ot measurement are audible...or even due to the device under test. That does not matter. No audible differences are unmeasurable. Randi is not taking up issues of audibility as much as he is taking up issues that must appear to him as claims of paranormal. "I assured Mike that such a device certainly comes under the JREF Challenge," says Mr. Randi regarding the Bedini Clarifier. So it appears the field is open for you or anyone to prove that you can hear a difference that's due to application of the Bedini Clarifier. In other wordd, to prove the tweak *works*. (Mr. Bedini, after all, doesn't claim that the Clarifier changes a CD in a way that is inaudible -- very much to the contrary). -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
He wants to test them on the claimed effects of their gear only,
paranormal is not involved, read the links again. In the previous one he makes reference to blind audio testing in a listening test. The only paranormal connection is that the tweeky audio crowd use exactly the same set of reasons why their effects dissappear when testing is done, the exact same ones; now ain't that intresting. They demonstrate there is a difference made in the sound and they get a million dollars, very simple. Why would anyone waste their time with this challenge? unless you can provide proof of paranormal activity you won't collect any money. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html I remeber hearing that Randi put the guy (I forget his name) who claimed he could read records to the test. That guy was a reviewer for TAS. My understanding is that he passed Randi's test. Did he collect a million dollars? Bottom line. No one is making claims of paranormal activity in audio that I know of. If any tweak works it works because it affects the signal. Of course Randi will never have to pay a million dollars to anyone with this challenge. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
What part of his requirements bothers you, what part would not make it
possible for the applicant to show his proported audio gear to it's best advantage? Look at some of the actual attempts made in other areas, the actual test is fair in every respect and if the claimed effect exists it should be clearly seen. For example if a water dowser claims to be able to find running water underground he is taken to an area with buried water pipes with running water in them; all have failed to find the pipes. The person making the claim is a part of the process, they agree to the test setup beforehand that it will make possible the claimed effect. Blind listening alone audio testing is so normal and widely used in such instances nothing exotic or otherwise faked or setup up to force a failure need even be considered. As mentioned here before, it can be as simple as putting a cloth over the connections of the gear under test. I can understand why some audio biz folk will not do it, their whole claim to exist is based on "I hear it, I really really do, don't you hear it also, don't you believe me?". A failure to confirm the claimed effect would mean a whole pr and marketing approach down the drain. Many might do it if Randi said he would keep the results silent, there is always the chance that they can somehow demonstrate the audibility of the gear and then proclaim it to high heaven and get the million bucks. If you had the million to use in such testing how would you proceed differently? In a follow up we find him saying: No, none of those 13 people I e-mailed about the audio challenge weeks They won't because they can't. They're fakers, irresponsible quacks, and they've gone under that huge rock where the other fakes have retreated. Say hello to Sylvia Browne while you're there, guys! And move over for the Bedini people. They'll be here shortly. Bedini did have 10 measurements to back up his claim. But at the same time it could be misleading. In one of the test done by them using spectrum analyser the "improvement" they got was a 1 or 2 decibel louder in all frequencies except for 200 to 400hz. To have that effect all you need to do is to crank up the volume. But at the same time if you look at the the graphs shown in his page, it would be quite a risk if you want to take up the challenge. Anyone with some experience with burning CDs can do the same comparison and to see how difficult to get accurate results. Though eventually you will prefer one over the other over a long period of time. Next, one of the measurement was a graphic file size reduced by 5% bits (total over 50000bits) after "clarifying"using bedini. I do scan photos in to my computer and 5% would not make any difference to my eyes that I can tell from the screen. Now let's look at Randi's terms and condition:- 1. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. (keyword = approving the conditions) 2. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon,...(keyword = JREF will agree upon) 3. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered. We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required. We have no interest in theories or explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if you provide us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded. 4.Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose. ( keyword =maybe used freely) 5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test...... (and read the next line) 6.This preliminary test is to determine if the applicant is likely to perform as promised during a formal test. To date, no applicant has passed the preliminary test, and this has eliminated the need for formal testing in those cases. 7 There is no limit on the number of times an applicant may re-apply, but re-application can take place only after 12 months have elapsed since the preliminary test. (keyword=12 months) 8. and his clause 7 -disclaimer . When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. 9. All expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs. Under these circumstances, would you take up the challenge? Rgds. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
What part of his requirements bothers you, what part would not make it possible for the applicant to show his proported audio gear to it's best advantage? Look at some of the actual attempts made in other areas, the actual test is fair in every respect and if the claimed effect exists it should be clearly seen. For example if a water dowser claims to be able to find running water underground he is taken to an area with buried water pipes with running water in them; all have failed to find the pipes. The person making the claim is a part of the process, they agree to the test setup beforehand that it will make possible the claimed effect. Blind listening alone audio testing is so normal and widely used in such instances nothing exotic or otherwise faked or setup up to force a failure need even be considered. As mentioned here before, it can be as simple as putting a cloth over the connections of the gear under test. I can understand why some audio biz folk will not do it, their whole claim to exist is based on "I hear it, I really really do, don't you hear it also, don't you believe me?". A failure to confirm the claimed effect would mean a whole pr and marketing approach down the drain. Many might do it if Randi said he would keep the results silent, there is always the chance that they can somehow demonstrate the audibility of the gear and then proclaim it to high heaven and get the million bucks. If you had the million to use in such testing how would you proceed differently? I am not sure whether he intentionally picked the number 13 but under the 3 letter word test ( can't mention the word, otherwise moderators might reject the post due to the moratarium on certain topics) all the unlucky 13 would fail. The immediate audible difference Bedini product would show is music being louder by 1 or 2 decible except for frequencies within 200 to 400khz. And ABX will do level matching, right? Rgds, p.s I don't use Bedini nor can I hear any diff using color pen. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 11 Sep 2004 14:51:17 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
I am not sure whether he intentionally picked the number 13 but under the 3 letter word test ( can't mention the word, otherwise moderators might reject the post due to the moratarium on certain topics) all the unlucky 13 would fail. The immediate audible difference Bedini product would show is music being louder by 1 or 2 decible except for frequencies within 200 to 400khz. And ABX will do level matching, right? More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any* mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one octave? All stuff and nonsense. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... snip..snip.. More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any* mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one octave? All stuff and nonsense. The guy is producing some 'reliable" reference and measurements. And I am just one the potential gullible souls who may fall for it. His references:- H. C. Ohanian, "On The Aproach of Electro-Magneto-Static Equilibrium", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 51, Nov., 1983, pp. 1020-1022. Erik J. Bochove and John Walkup, "A Communication on Electrical Charge Relaxation in Metals", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp. 131-134, Feb. 1990. Electronics Engineer's Reference Book, 5th Edn., Ed. by F. Mazda, 1983, p. 50/3. B. Yavorsky and A. Detlaf, Handbook of Physics, MIR Publishers, Moscow, revised from the Russian 1977 edition, p. 178. Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984, p. 992. H. S. Min and Doyeol Ahn, "Lengevin Noise Sources for the Boltzmann Transport Equations with the Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate Semiconductors", J. ofApplied Physics, vol. 58 (6), Sep. 15, 1985, pp. 2262-2265. S. Vitale et. al., "Magnetic Viscosity, Thermal Relaxation, and Thermal Equilibrium Noise in Co-based Amorphous Alloys at MilliKelvin Temperatures", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 72 (10), Nov. 15, 1992, pp. 4820-4825. K. G. Moh, et. at., "Equivalent Noise Source for Boltzmann Transport Equation with Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate Semiconductors", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 74 (10), Nov., 15, 1993, pp. 6217-6221. and his measurements An analysis of an audio compact disc was carried out with the test completed using a Schlumberger 1510 Audio Spectrum Analyzer to display real-time fast fourier transform (FFT) spectra of the sound, a Tektronix 465B dual-trace oscilloscope to display phase differences between left and right stereo channels as well as waveform shapes, and a Leader LMV-185A 2 channel AC Millivoltmeter to simultaneously read the amplitude of the left and right stereo channels. The spectrum analyzer has a frequency range of up to 25 khz, a dynamic range of 70 db, and an absolute range of 100 db using attenuators, and an accuracy of 0.1 db and 1/256 of the frequency range selected. All measurements were made using the 25 khz range. The oscilloscope has an upper frequency range of 100 mhz. The test CD was played on the Denon DCD-1500 II compact disk player connected directly to the above instrumentation. The test CD, CDP 7 46446 2, DIDX 2249 Stereo, UK: CD-PCS 7078, manufactured by Capitol Records, otherwise known as the Beatles: Abbey Road album originally recorded in 1969 and digitally re-mastered in 1987 for CD, was subjected to the above equipment and technique. Spectral measurements at a 00:24 interval was made on track #7, a selection known as "Here Comes the Sun". Track #7, at a 24 second interval, is exhibited in Example I as a series of bar graphs in diagrams 1-8. The bar graphs simultaneously show the relative loudness in decibels "before" and "after" clarifying of the device. Each pair of bars represents the relative loudness of frequencies between 100 hertz and 25600 hertz of Track #7 time 24 seconds of the audio CD analyzed. Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder after processing by the device. Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however, the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after processing. It is noted that each of the spectral differences as well as the average spectrum difference follow a profile demonstrates the effect that clarifying by the instant device has on the CD. (Source http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...OFF&p=1&u=/net ahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=bedini&s2 =electro&OS=b edini+AND+electro&RS=bedini+AND+electro) Is the above measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Sep 2004 14:41:34 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... snip..snip.. More importantly, ABX would reveal that the Bedini device did absolutely nothing at all. Do you really believe that there is *any* mechanism which would cause a treated CD to be louder except in one octave? All stuff and nonsense. The guy is producing some 'reliable" reference and measurements. And I am just one the potential gullible souls who may fall for it. Do you actually understand how CD works? If you do, do you understand that such a claim would imply that the Clarifier *seriously damaged* the CD? Do you also realise that it's *impossible* for one octave to be differently affected from the others? All stuff and nonsense. At the very best possible interpretation, incompetent use of the measuring equipment. His references:- H. C. Ohanian, "On The Aproach of Electro-Magneto-Static Equilibrium", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 51, Nov., 1983, pp. 1020-1022. Erik J. Bochove and John Walkup, "A Communication on Electrical Charge Relaxation in Metals", Am. Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp. 131-134, Feb. 1990. Electronics Engineer's Reference Book, 5th Edn., Ed. by F. Mazda, 1983, p. 50/3. B. Yavorsky and A. Detlaf, Handbook of Physics, MIR Publishers, Moscow, revised from the Russian 1977 edition, p. 178. Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1984, p. 992. H. S. Min and Doyeol Ahn, "Lengevin Noise Sources for the Boltzmann Transport Equations with the Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate Semiconductors", J. ofApplied Physics, vol. 58 (6), Sep. 15, 1985, pp. 2262-2265. S. Vitale et. al., "Magnetic Viscosity, Thermal Relaxation, and Thermal Equilibrium Noise in Co-based Amorphous Alloys at MilliKelvin Temperatures", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 72 (10), Nov. 15, 1992, pp. 4820-4825. K. G. Moh, et. at., "Equivalent Noise Source for Boltzmann Transport Equation with Relaxation-time Approximation in Nondegenerate Semiconductors", J. of Applied Physics, vol. 74 (10), Nov., 15, 1993, pp. 6217-6221. and his measurements An analysis of an audio compact disc was carried out with the test completed using a Schlumberger 1510 Audio Spectrum Analyzer to display real-time fast fourier transform (FFT) spectra of the sound, a Tektronix 465B dual-trace oscilloscope to display phase differences between left and right stereo channels as well as waveform shapes, and a Leader LMV-185A 2 channel AC Millivoltmeter to simultaneously read the amplitude of the left and right stereo channels. The spectrum analyzer has a frequency range of up to 25 khz, a dynamic range of 70 db, and an absolute range of 100 db using attenuators, and an accuracy of 0.1 db and 1/256 of the frequency range selected. All measurements were made using the 25 khz range. The oscilloscope has an upper frequency range of 100 mhz. The test CD was played on the Denon DCD-1500 II compact disk player connected directly to the above instrumentation. The test CD, CDP 7 46446 2, DIDX 2249 Stereo, UK: CD-PCS 7078, manufactured by Capitol Records, otherwise known as the Beatles: Abbey Road album originally recorded in 1969 and digitally re-mastered in 1987 for CD, was subjected to the above equipment and technique. Spectral measurements at a 00:24 interval was made on track #7, a selection known as "Here Comes the Sun". Track #7, at a 24 second interval, is exhibited in Example I as a series of bar graphs in diagrams 1-8. The bar graphs simultaneously show the relative loudness in decibels "before" and "after" clarifying of the device. Each pair of bars represents the relative loudness of frequencies between 100 hertz and 25600 hertz of Track #7 time 24 seconds of the audio CD analyzed. Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder after processing by the device. Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however, the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after processing. It is noted that each of the spectral differences as well as the average spectrum difference follow a profile demonstrates the effect that clarifying by the instant device has on the CD. (Source http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...OFF&p=1&u=/net ahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=bedini&s2 =electro&OS=b edini+AND+electro&RS=bedini+AND+electro) Is the above measurement/experiment so difficult to replicate? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chelvam" wrote in message ...
Diagram 1 shows the entire spectrum from 100 to 25600 hertz in 8 frequency bands as labeled at the bottom of the diagram. It is noted that each frequency range except for 200 to 400 hertz is about 1 or 2 decibels louder after processing by the device. Diagrams 2-8 display the same data in more detail showing a larger number of smaller frequency ranges in intervals of only 100 hertz each. Because frequency ranges are smaller there are more variations in the data, however, the readings show the trend of being 1 to 2 decibels louder after processing. Frequency response anomalies like this ought to be detectable in DBTs. So, to answer a question you posed the other day, Yes, Bedini should absolutely take up Randi's offer. That is, assuming he believes his own numbers. bob |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
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)." 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. In this second link. Randi publishes a reader's letter that refers to Stereophile. Hardly a "run-in." In the first link, Randi writes: "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." Unless Randi talked with someone he assumed was representing Stereophile but wasn't, this is simply incorrect. Randi didn't contact us, nor did we "opt" out. In fact, if you read the Stereophile articles at the link I gave you, you would have seen that far from promoting the Tice Clock, our overall feeling was that the Clock was not worth recommending. As a result, Tice canceled all its advertising and devoted its resources to advertising in Audio magazine. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
" 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. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| 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 | |||
Hybrid Mode
