Claim your $1M from the Great Randi

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
diyAudio Editor
Joined 2001
Paid Member
I'll bet Randi has a staff person that can easily be contacted by e-mail. It would take less time to do this than to continue developing conspiracy theories as to why he won't pay out. As has been said, The point is to negociate the terms in advance.
The point is, one person can do the test and merely prove that HE or SHE can distinguish differences.

Why keep hypothisizing what Randi will say or agree to when it would be easier (and less annoying) to contact his organization. and ask. While this doesn't eliminate the concerns that he will cheat, most of the theories being proposed are about :
-what terms he will accept
- Does the item have to be "paranormal" to qualify or merely appear to be outside of how things are understood to behave in our world

-whether he understands what a Shakti stone is
-Whether the stone has to make things sound better or if it is merely detectable.


For al we know maybe Randi IS only interested in parnormal psychic stuff. BUT , from what people that seem to know his approach say, he could well consider the Stone fair game- considering that hew has specified that he will.
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Best regards from Ben Piazza.

I just spend the best part of an hour on the phone with Mr Ben Piazza, the creator of the Shakti stones.

I agree with him that it is possible to construct something that absorbs or dampens RF radiation or EMI and similar phenomena. For instance, we discussed the use of ferrite clamps on cables, mostly used on computers and computer pheripherals. However in his opinion these are less good than Shakti's because they will become magnetic over time and lose their efficiency, and they work also in the lower spectrum thereby influencing the audio directly. I understood that he also feels that RF/EMI could directly influence a listener's perception (not as part of the audio coming out of the speaker), but we didn't go into that further.

On the Dymo tests, he maintains that the ones they used are really accurate enough to even reliably detect 1% differences between runs, correcting for atmopheric pressure etc. I don't know about that, from what I have seen on this thread is conflicting. On the other hand, I can accept that lowering electromagnetic interference in sensitive system makes a difference. Still, 1% is a quite small difference between runs. I'm not convinced.

We also discussed blind audio testing. He told me that a famous audio studio in Boston has done blind testing with Shakti's many years ago and readily detected differences. Unfortunately, there is no documentation available from that event.

We also collectively recalled an article of many years ago in Audio Amateur of Walt Jung and Garo Galo where they said that changing from 'normal' rectifiers in an amps supply to fast soft recovery ones made an audible difference (no blind testing of course), which was attributed to a lower RF spectrum. However, in that case, there was a direct galvanic connection from the supply into the amp. Damping RF at some point on a cable is quite a different kettle of fish IMHO.

So, where does that leave me (as if anyone cares, ha!)? I know that it is possible to construct RF and EMI dampers. I also know that RF and EMI can influence an audio component. If Mr Piazza would only come up with some kind of blind testing like he mentioned. Preferably with participation of some sceptics on this forum. SY...?

Jan Didden
 
I phoned the Phoundation, and was told the person to speak to regarding details about a $1M Challenge was Kramer, who will return to the office tomorrow morning. I asked if Kramer was a first or last name and was told, "The person just goes by the name Kramer." Kramer it is!

While you all wait nervously anticipating my kall to kramer tomorrow morning, Pacific time, here's more Shakti ~~Stones~~ Stuff courtesy our good friend and world-class stupidity hurdler:

THE STUPID STONES ARE BACK

In response to my appearance on an audiophile web forum, where the JREF million-dollar challenge was being discussed in relation to the "Shakti Stones" farce, I heard from a Dave Clark, who at once began assuming the usual fallacies about the challenge. He ran on and on about his total misinterpretation of the challenge, then declared that he is simply "not interested." I responded:

Mr. Clark: Interesting! Though it's obvious to everyone else here that there's absolutely no requirement for YOU to prove ANYTHING "to [my] satisfaction," since any tests would be done with YOUR people, the way YOU want to operate, with YOUR agreement, with YOUR equipment setup. But you knew that, Clark, and this is obfuscation.

You state that "the money [is] not really an issue." Really? You're fabulously wealthy, then? You also complain that, "More money equals more headaches!" Ah, but just think of the aspirins you could buy with a million dollars — and have lots left over! Let's examine a couple of your other comments: "with regards to the restrictions that he applies to others..." Since you're obviously — perhaps purposefully — ignorant of my work, you've no way of knowing anything about any "restrictions" I might have ever "applied" to any tests. However, logical, definitive, simple, straightforward, and rational, may be "restrictive" elements to you, so you wouldn't want to get involved, and I fully understand.

You also suggest: " . . . perhaps Ben Piazza of Shakti could do it. Has he [Randi] made the offer to Ben?" Dave, you silly rascal, you know that this offer is open to anyone and everyone, in any country, any age, and any I.Q. level. Mr. Piazza certainly qualifies! Perhaps you'd be so kind as to personally forward my offer to him, then? Wow! This is exciting! Ben, where are you? And I should add, Dave, that yes, I specifically did challenge Ben, via e-mail and on my web page — where an average of 90,000 daily page hits are entered, internationally. And Ben won't respond. Why do you suppose this is so, Dave?

Hello, Ben? You out there somewhere? Call Dave!

Dave, you're the ONLY one in the audio field who has responded to my challenge in these audio matters, even though you weren't one of those I specifically contacted. And you're "not interested"? Gee, we have to wonder why. I'd ask those on the audio forum to put pressure on those others I specifically challenged on these matters....!


Dave Clark responded briefly to pressure from the forum:

Sure I would love to have a mioolin [sic] dollars. But I do not see me getting it from Randi.


No application, no ability, no guts, no hope, Dave. I agree.

Ah, but one Robert Young, AIA, Senior Associate of an architectural firm in NYC, has decided that he wants the million dollars for telling us whether or not Shakti Stones are being used. Says he, confidently, "i'll [sic] be practicing this weekend." Yes, and on Monday we'll hear that he's found this sort of thing doesn't work under pressure, that he's decided he's too busy, that he now doesn't want the million, or that he's not going to humor us by winning the prize. Betcha!
 
I understood that he also feels that RF/EMI could directly influence a listener's perception (not as part of the audio coming out of the speaker),


I assume this means that the stones are alleged to interact with the voice coil somehow. I don't think the Shakti site claims I'm hearing the Rf directly. "RF/EMI" cover a wide spectrum but I seems to be we can narrow it down a bit. I didn't see any dimensional drawings but it looked like the longest dimention was about 10" or 0.25 meters. The ability of materials to interact with Rf radiation depends partly on size. That's why DirectTV can use an 18" dish while C-band needs about a 6' dish and submarines trail a mile(s) long wire behind them. The relationship of wavelength to frequency is:

(Wavelength in meters) = 300/ Frequency in Mhz

A 10" shakti stone corresponds to 300/.25m = 1200Mhz (1.2Ghz)

This is where one might expecrt the stone to interact most strongly with with RF. Even if the interaction extends to .01 wavelength that is still 12Mhz. The photos on the website showed the stones sitting on top of fairly conventional speakers which prably were based on magnet and ciol technology. Keep in mind that even the most extreme bandwidth for electrostatic, ribbon, magnetic planer tweeters seem to limited to 100kHz. Coil and magnet is somewhat lower. If the RF that is supressed by the stones is still lower in frequncy, say 1.2Mhz, can interesct with these speaker mechanisms it must be through the inductive elements which are low pass filters. I'm not very familiar with speaker construction so perhaps someone could profide some typical pole frequencies to see ho much likely "supression" band of the Shakti's overlaps the bandwitch of voice coils and other inductive elements in a speaker.

There is also a lmitation imposed by the mass of the magnet that is likely more stingent that the bandwidth of the coil.

Next I'm going to reject without embarassment that audiophiles (other than hairy 4-legged ones that pee on fire hydrants) can hear anything much above 20kHz. This suggests to me that what the Shakti's protect me from must be some sort of IM-like artifacts generated by audio range signals and RF frequency signals.

If there are any SPICE whizes reading this who have not fallen asleep yet, would care to simulate a IM spectra from a 1kHz sine and a 1.2Mhz sine? A reasonable volatage for the 1kHz signal in a mid-high speaker playing normally might be 5Vrms. Take a wild guess at thr voltage from the 1.2Mhz RF - I've no idea myself. This exercize should provide some boundaries for PHYSICAL not PARANORMAL plausibility.
 
diyAudio Editor
Joined 2001
Paid Member
If Mr Piazza would only come up with some kind of blind testing like he mentioned. Preferably with participation of some sceptics on this forum. SY...?


What's cool about the double blind testing is that it's fine for a person who complely believes that there is an effect, ie is biased in favor of some effect caused by the stones, to participate. If they can differentiate them, then SY sitting in his home will probably believe that it is true IF he feels the test was fair.

I suspect you are addresing the fair part- being there might indeed help people believe that a test is fair...
 
Which brings to light an important point... As KYW mentioned previously, it is much preferred to have "competent" people taking DB tests, which in this context would be "true believers possessing golden ears." There you have the greatest chance of finding someone who can pass the test, and also the most valuable statistical limits if everyone fails to do so.

Isn't it interesting that the "true believers possessing golden ears" are the ones who consistently refuse to participate in such tests? There is IMO a direct correlation with how much one stands to lose in failing a test and their tendancy to weasel out of taking one. Never does the correlation seem to be between their confidence in their ability and their probability of taking a test.

That in itself probably tells us all something important.
 
It isn't a fact, but rather a statement of fact stemming from an observation. Like all statements of fact it could be true or false, but my observation is that it tends to be true or I wouldn't have bothered to write it.

It isn't an opinion because it could be proven true or false with a comprehensive survey.
 
diyAudio Senior Member
Joined 2002
Hi,

It isn't a fact, but rather a statement of fact stemming from an observation.

That's what we call an opinion over here as you don't have anything palpable to go by....

If I look out of the window and notice it's raining outside and then say to the others present that it's raining, that would be considered a statement of fact.

IMO, you're mind is made up already anyway....that's my observation.

Again IMO the Shakti stuff would have a rather subtle effect depending on the actual environment the test was taken in: lots of RFI or not etc.
Either way, from what I gather, it's not something that's immediately obvious_not even to the "golden eared"_ but rather something that manifests itself after prolonged use.

Pls. correct me if I'm wrong but I see the effect as less listening fatigue, a more enjoyable listening experience?
Something that takes time to realise the subtle effect of either way, no?
Just the thing that's far from obvious in a test setup where you'd just ABX randomly.
In fact I very, very much doubt anyone could possibly pass a test like that other than by mere chance.

Then again it may be mathematically easier than winning the lottery anyway...so go and get that million, I'd say.

Cheers,;)
 
fdegrove said:
That's what we call an opinion over here as you don't have anything palpable to go by....

Then "over there" you guys simply don't know how to use the term 'opinion' correctly.

A statement of fact is something that is either true or false, and could with a suitable test be proven one way or the other, at least in theory.

A statement of opinion is something that can, by definition, be neither true or false. You can't prove it one way or another, no matter what the test, not even in theory.

Example: "I think the sky is purple." Merely putting "I think" or "I believe" in front doesn't make it any less of a statement of fact, nor does the reality that it is a false statement. A statement of fact is not synonymous with a fact.

Example: "I think blue skies are prettier than purple skies." This is an opinion, as it is neither true or false in any factual sense. You can't prove that blue skies are prettier, nor can you prove purple ones are.

If something either is, or isn't, you don't have an opinion on it... you have a belief. If you think various cables sound differently, you don't have the opinion that they do, you have the belief that they do. If that forms a central part of how you view audio equipment (everything counts...), it becomes your belief system.
 
RHosch said:
It isn't a fact, but rather a statement of fact stemming from an observation. Like all statements of fact it could be true or false, but my observation is that it tends to be true or I wouldn't have bothered to write it.

It isn't an opinion because it could be proven true or false with a comprehensive survey.

In other words, it was a statement of fact stemming from an observation, which observation, from which the statement of fact derives, could by further observation can be said to be tending to be true because, deep breath, writing untrue things bothers me---but in essence, an observation of an observation.

And so doth the Randi thread plod its ever-forward course.
 
diyAudio Senior Member
Joined 2002
Hi,

That was what was so cool about the wire directionality test.

True.
The fact that the test subjects had ample time to run the test was a major advantage.

People were able to listen as long as they wanted, in their own systems and it was still a valid test.

I wouldn't call it a valid test however:

-as we're still in the dark about whether the wire was indeed directional or not. Maybe I missed it when it was disclosed?

- as AFAIK only two people took the test.

- the outcome cost us a member...:clown:

Whatever happened to our Aussie Viking anyway???

So in conclusion the only thing we can tell about that test is that neither of the participants could tell the directionality of that particular piece of wire in the context of their testprocedure(s).

Cheers,;)
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.