| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
My sense is that Randi saw the East Indian, spiritual, new age name "Shakti," he saw "stones," he did not realise the "stones" actually are devices that generate non-paranormal electrical effects, he thought "AHA, bogus bogus!" then issued his invitation to take up his offer to demonstrate supernatural powers. |
How would you explain the parallel challenge to Peter Belt? "Well, Uri Geller wears a belt, he's a psychic fraud, AHA, bogus, bogus, bogus!" |
|
|
| sam9 |
I have seen and read examples of Randi and his challenge. He is a very straight shooter and will not squirm his way out with legalese. You can accept his challenge with no fear it will degenerate into a debate about what "the meaning of 'is' is". He appears to be quite well off, and I'm sure he could write a check for $1M with little or no strain.
| quote: | | My sense is that Randi saw the East Indian, spiritual, new age name "Shakti," he saw "stones," he did not realise the "stones" actually are devices that generate non-paranormal electrical effects, he thought "AHA, bogus bogus!" then issued his invitation to take up his offer to demonstrate supernatural powers. |
Actually, his attention appears to have been drawn to them by one of the principle guys at QSC. You really should read up on this at the Randi website. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | What I'm saying is Dandi Randi's invitation to Shakti to take his metaphysical challenge probably arose from confusion on Randi's part.
|
Fat chance. I've not met him personally, but I have seen film/videos of him in action. This is not a guy prone to confusion. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
I've not met him personally, but I have seen film/videos of him in action. |
I know what you're talking about. I've seen video tape of the guy running the 400m hurdles while at the same time dee-bunking stupidity. I honestly don't know any person who can clear hurdles *and* stupidity in one cognitive-physical leap! |
|
|
| SY |
| No hurdles at his age, but in his youth, he was a master escape artist in the mode of his hero, Houdini. Canadian, too- originally from Toronto. Won the $1MM MacArthur Genius Award. |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
SY:
Read the page you linked from Randi's website in post #188.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...2693#post462693
What Randi seems to be saying, or suggesting, is that the use of the QSC ABX Comparator for testing purposes.
If someone has some qualms about the ABX test or the Comparator, I wonder if Randi would pay the money.
I'm sure he would pay it if you pass the test using the Comparator, but I wonder if he would be amenable to other tests.
I have nothing against the ABX test or the QSC unit. However, that seems to be what Randi is suggesting as the basis for the test. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I just talked again with Ben Piazza of Shakti. You, who have little faith, should give him a call at: (310)459-5704 I told him already about the thread. [snip] |
John,
Did you also make him aware that the curves in Fig 2 and 3 on the dymo test page show identical curves yet are flogged as two different tests?
So, what would happen if I call him? Would he reveal to me the secret behind how the Shaktis really work, so that in a flash of insight I would UNDERSTAND? Understand what apparently is cleverly hidden in all his websites, advertising, etc?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| FrankWW |
Fascinating thread. Shakti stones. Be easy enought to see if they have an effect on audio electronic equipment behaviour. If they do, is it one that's audible to a listener?
If Randi and Shakti were to agree to a test would they agree to protocols at least as rigorous as these?
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/quality/reports.php
But, more germane to our general interests, and to comments about testing earlier in the thread, if it is an audible difference, is it one that generally enhances listening to music? Is it a big enhancement or a small one? And is it the result of an added artifact or a subtracted one? These questions aren't always easily answered.
What is definitely a problem open to scientific investigation is that a lot of people can agree on what is good and bad reproduced musical sound when they hear it, but that it's not always clear what makes it good or bad.
My opinion -as an audiophile who started out over 40years ago building Heathkits and horn speakers- is that engineering expertise and materials for making good reproduced musical sound are available, but that some critical components of good sound are not well known (either to designers or end users) and that some are not yet discovered (or, at least, not formally described with appropriate theoretical and experimental underpinning). The parameters are psychoacoustically determined and not easy to winkle out.
See examples of recent research approaches found after a very cursory online search:
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://web.iol.cz/etos/AES116S.htm
http://www.aes.org/events/115/papers/SessionF.cfm
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/soundrec/php/projects.php
Contents of the 2003 AES journal:
http://www.aes-japan.org/journal/journal_2003.html
(It's probably not coincidental that Nokia, like Bell did in its own labs 70 years ago, is sponsoring research in this area in universities all over the world).
The audiophile engineering approach (which is not unreasonable) has been to attempt to produce equipment which does not introduce any new artifacts to the signal plugged into the reproduction chain so that the signal produced by the speaker is a faithful analogue of the original signal.
How well does this accord with the nature of human hearing and musical experience? I don't think many people know how to answer this adequately. I don't.
What the hell does it matter, if the listening room is inadequate? Nearly all small rooms are inadequate.
If microphones listen flat and human ears do not, do I want a flat system response? Probably not.
I listen to big music -symphonies, opera, choral music- and compression, room characteristics, masking effects, if allowed to play out, don't have subtle effects: the sound becomes crappy. I have to deal with these things and fortunately there are straight forward procedures an amateur like me can do: (eg) room treatment, more narrowly radiating speakers, active crossovers, better EQ.
I do these things and there's great improvement, more listening pleasure, etc. Now what? I've optimized. And I'm still not that pleased with the results.
Which system design decisions, at the margin, are going to make a significant difference in sound quality, now?
Exotic speaker cables? Thingamajigs to put under or in my equipment? These things are generally speaking, costly, and from that point of view I'm now at diminishing returns.
If I still want big improvements, then I'm better off thinking about starting again from scratch, improving every aspect of the chain. and there's not much point in doing that, I think, if I'm not up to speed on latest pyschoacoustical research regarding reproduced sound... The list of performance requirements for the new system will be incomplete, if not in error.
Perhaps, when I've completed this next iteration I might be ready for something like Shakti stones. |
|
|
| john curl |
Jann, I was going to ignore this thread at this point, because I learn more from the people who you are attacking than from you and others here who criticize without any real research.
It is so obvious how the Shakti Stones work now, that I am surprised that you haven't figured it out.
Your rant about dyno's work and their limits doesn't hold water with a better unit and a repeated test setup. +/- 1 HP should be possible through the tires, says Mustang, the dyno used in the website test. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
The use of the ABX Comperator is not an indication that something is amiss, but one does wonders if Randi would accept a few trials (I found after 5 "trials" my attention wanders off and I start scoring more and more random, poor attention span is one of my problems) and an apropriate level of statistic significance (say .4 which is apropriate to small differences on 5 Trials).
If he did I would call him an idiot and get his million, if not then I would have to say that if he insists on a higher level of significance he is a FRAUD (or as pointed out earlier - a charlatan) as he would in effect be assuring null results statistically.
Indeed, I call anyone a charlatan who did a DBT for small differnences with only 1 - 5 personsn and the standard ABX Protocol and .05 significance. So, it leaves us exactly where we started.
Unless someone is willing to conduct a serious study with large numbers of participants no proof would accrue, EVEN if the Randi challenge is passed in such a case.
I wish people would start approaching things scientifically instead of all that publicity stunt charlatanerie and debunking, fat chance of that of course.
Sayonara |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jann, I was going to ignore this thread at this point, because I learn more from the people who you are attacking than from you and others here who criticize without any real research.
It is so obvious how the Shakti Stones work now, that I am surprised that you haven't figured it out.
Your rant about dyno's work and their limits doesn't hold water with a better unit and a repeated test setup. +/- 1 HP should be possible through the tires, says Mustang, the dyno used in the website test. |
John, I stand corrected: I know how they work, the mechanism, but as SY has pointed out, the important thing is the effect on say, the reproduction of music, or on performance of car engines. That I still do not understand, or maybe it is not a matter of not understanding but of not being able to find some credible test. I have not been able to find any testing on audio (and glorious adjective-laden rants of reviewers I do not count as tests).
I did find some automotive tests. There I have conflicting opinions on the resolution of the tests, and I have a case of identical curves presented as separate tests. Suppose I gloss that all over. Let us accept the curves thing as a genuine error and not a delibered fraud, and accept that there is a 1% difference in tests results. Let us also gloss over the fact that there are test differences if you repeat tests in say 20 min slots, resulting from environmental and DUT variation with time.
Now are you willing to tell me honestly and squarly to my face that you personally are convinced that this 1% increase is the result, without any doubt on your part, of placing Shakti stones as indicated on the engine parts?
Jan Didden
BTW No need to ignore this complete thread. You can just ignore my or other critics' posts, there is a facility in the User CP I think it is that lets you put individual members in a so-called ignore file. Works like a charm. |
|
|
| TNT |
I think Randi should focus on the Belt stuff. The "sschtones" has after all magnets in them that will laffect a nerby object. Hell - people pay dollars to get resistors and connectors which are non magnetic.
Funny - my bet is that no one (incl. myself) has tested a stone.
Now we wanna know if they are the "fift element" !
/ |
|
|
| SY |
keltic, based on what Randi has done in the past with claimants, it is likely that test protocols other than ABX will be accepted as long as they are truly blind and secure. For Shakti stones, if I were taking the test, I can think of several ways that a proper controlled test could be structured. For the Challenge, tests are generally negociated individually, tailored to the specific claims being made.
The key is that each party agrees to the protocol in advance. True Believers can whine, stomp their feet, call names, kick sand, whatever, but it's a fair test. And the protocols can be quite simple. My favorite one was a girl who claimed a Geller-like ability to bend spoons using her psychic powers- but unlike Geller, she claimed, SHE wasn't a fake. So, he sat her at a table, put a spoon in front of her, turned on the video camera, and let her have at it- except that he put carbon black on the bowl of the spoon to show up any mechanical tampering. Needless to say, she is not a million dollars richer.
C'mon guys. It's a million bucks. Surely ONE of you can stop making excuses, dream up a proper test, and claim the money. We could sure use our 10% cut.
BTW, I'll mention a proper test using a dynamo, for the benefit of people like me with quite ordinary hearing. An independent lab does a series of dyno runs with and without the magic stones. They code each dyno output chart randomly. The claimant then has to separate the charts into two groups, charts of engine-with-stone and charts of engine-without-stone. Use statistics, eyeballs, whatever, just be able to show that there is a difference. |
|
|
| janneman |
I'm with you SY. Hell, if I were in the Fortune-500, I'd double Randi's stash!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| john curl |
SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one.
Jan, I have NOT tried the SHAKTI STONES on my Porsche or my Acura, but if I wasn't so lazy, I would. I have no reason to doubt Ben, when he tells me that the tests were made by OTHERS who tried his stuff and it WORKED for them! The reason why is obvious to an electronics engineer. What do you do for a living? ;-) |
|
|
| john curl |
Good input, Kuei. You and I don't know each other, BUT we think much alike!
Unfortunately, your cynicism is well placed. I have fought this battle for 25 years, to almost deaf ears, even when I did catch them 'red-handed' in making several significant test errors. My comments, at first, were mostly technical mistakes, but I also agree that this 95% business is nonsense! It always was: nonsense! |
|
|
| RHosch |
I believe the mechanism responsible for causing people to claim to understand things which are illogical and to claim to hear things which is in the big picture one and the same. Sad, really.
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl:
SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one. |
As was pointed out previously, ANY "winner" of the Randi challenge would have done so by demonstrating a previously unknown or unbelieved PHYSICAL phenomenon, not a paranormal one. That Randi uses the term paranormal in his challenge is a convienient reference to a class of things which has no basis in current physical understanding (and thus are believed not to exist). Were anyone to demonstrate a "paranormal" ability, it would no longer be classified as paranormal. Thus Shakti's "lawyer's" rejection is a thinly disguised one. A cop out. Unless you are suggesting that Randi would never pay anyone for demonstrating any ability, purely on the grounds of a pretty lame semantic loophole.
Sorry, that's just not Randi. That's the parties that continue to weasel out of his challenge.
| quote: | KYW:
The use of the ABX Comperator is not an indication that something is amiss, but one does wonders if Randi would accept a few trials (I found after 5 "trials" my attention wanders off and I start scoring more and more random, poor attention span is one of my problems) and an apropriate level of statistic significance (say .4 which is apropriate to small differences on 5 Trials). |
Please explain how .4 is an appropriate level of significance for ANY number of trials!?! The obvious fact is that 5 trials is simply not enough to reach an acceptable level of stastical significance. Give me a few minutes and I'll prove that I can psychically force a coin to turn up heads 5 times in a row... proven to your standards, at least. If you experience listener fatigue after 5 trials, fine. That's easily accomodated in any controlled testing by breaking the test into multiple sessions... as many as are needed.
| quote: | | If he did I would call him an idiot and get his million |
Of course he would be an idiot if he accepted such a ridiculously low level of significance. And I think the same of anyone who actually thinks such a level has any meaning, or is appropriate under any circumstances.
| quote: | | if not then I would have to say that if he insists on a higher level of significance he is a FRAUD (or as pointed out earlier - a charlatan) as he would in effect be assuring null results statistically. |
What... you mean you fault a challenge that has a sole purpose establishing factual proof for any unexpected or unbelievable phenomenon for actually wanting to use FACTUAL PROOF as the basis of judgement?
| quote: | | Indeed, I call anyone a charlatan who did a DBT for small differnences with only 1 - 5 personsn and the standard ABX Protocol and .05 significance. |
Again, why is .05 any less appropriate for one person than for one million? In the case of one person it simply means an larger number of trials are needed to reach that level of confidence. And I think you may have a fundamental misconception about the arrival of confidence levels as they apply to a small test group. It's ok if you, a single individual, can only correctly identify a subtle change correctly 60% of the time (just a little better than guessing randomly). While 20 trials would not show your ability to a sufficient level of confidence, taking more would. After a few hundred trials, where you averaged about 60% correct, you would have easily established to a 95% confidence level your ability to do better than chance alone would predict. If I flip a coin 20 times and "force" it to come up heads 12 times, I would have proven absolutely nothing (even more ridiculous if it came up heads 4 out of 5 times). But if it comes up heads 60 out of 100, things are more interesting. And if it comes up heads 600 out of 1000, you can bet that scientists would take the evidence seriously.
| quote: | | Unless someone is willing to conduct a serious study with large numbers of participants no proof would accrue, EVEN if the Randi challenge is passed in such a case. |
To drive the point home, you don't need large numbers of participants. Just one, with a sufficient number of trials, will do nicely. I think I said this way back in this thread... controlled testing can easily prove the positive with just one single individual. Wine tasters do such all the time. You don't need statistical averaging over large groups of people unless your only purpose is to find the average level of sensitivity in a population to a particular thing. If you're proving one person's claimed ability, that person is the only participant needed. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | SY, I don't believe you. I believe that the Shakti Stones are EXEMPT from the 1M prize, BECAUSE they have a PHYSICAL cause, NOT a PARANORMAL one. |
Sorry to be blunt - it doesn't matter what you believe. Randi has published his letter to the assorted reviewers making his challenge quite explicit. The challenge, in this case, does NOT require demonstration of a paranormal cause. The text of the letters is available on the Randi website.
The objection as stated above is purely a strawman. There are many good reasons not to take up the challenge but to decline only on the basis above is just an excuse. |
|
|
| janneman |
I asked John Curl:
Now are you willing to tell me honestly and squarly to my face that you personally are convinced that this 1% increase is the result, without any doubt on your part, of placing Shakti stones as indicated on the engine parts?
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
[snip]Jan, I have NOT tried the SHAKTI STONES on my Porsche or my Acura, but if I wasn't so lazy, I would. I have no reason to doubt Ben, when he tells me that the tests were made by OTHERS who tried his stuff and it WORKED for them! The reason why is obvious to an electronics engineer. What do you do for a living? ;-) |
Thank you John, that's a clear answer.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
Sorry, that's just not Randi. |
Oh my, friends of Randi. And they give legal advice on the side. Bonus! |
|
|
| Variac |
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. |
|
|
| janneman |
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 |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Nice post, Jan. Forthright, balanced, not cynical. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Has anyone yet called Randi's office regarding the invitation he sent regarding Shakti stones? If not, I will. |
|
|
| SY |
| I have emailed but a phone call from someone skeptical of Randi might carry more weight. I think that's a dandy idea, sp. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
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:
| quote: | 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! |
|
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | 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. |
|
|
| Variac |
| quote: | | 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... |
|
|
| SY |
| Variac, I'd go one step further- the only people I'd want to have on a listening panel are those who believe, under sighted conditions, that they hear an effect. |
|
|
| RHosch |
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. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Isn't it interesting that the "true believers possessing golden ears" are the ones who consistently refuse to participate in such tests? |
Is that a fact or just opinion?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| RHosch |
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. |
|
|
| john curl |
| Jan, have you received your e-mail from Ben? Care to retract? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | 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,;) |
|
|
| Variac |
That was what was so cool about the wire directionality test.
People were able to listen as long as they wanted, in their own systems and it was still a valid test. |
|
|
| RHosch |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
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. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
That was what was so cool about the wire directionality test.
People were able to listen as long as they wanted, in their own systems and it was still a valid test. |
Yeah. Except the participant who was most confident in their ability to detect directionality up and disappeared soon after preliminary set of wires were sent to him.
se |
|
|
| RHosch |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
IMO, you're mind is made up already anyway....that's my observation. |
And someone who believes that "everything counts" doesn't already have a specified mindset? Please be consistent.
I do have an open mind... just not so open that I can no longer prevent complete **** from entering. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
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. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | 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.
| quote: | | 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,;) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
I do have an open mind... just not so open that I can no longer prevent complete **** from entering. |
I know what you mean by preventing complete **** from entering---I hate complete ****, can't stand the stuff sooo .... crappy and .... you know, complete---but I've lately turned my eye to part **** too and am wondering what you think of that. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | If you think various cables sound differently, you don't have the opinion that they do, you have the belief that they do. |
And all that time I thought I wasn't religious....
For your information, I only believe in facts, and then some, not necessarily in what I think.
| quote: | | Then "over there" you guys simply don't know how to use the term 'opinion' correctly. |
Source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...elief&x=14&y=14
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned /-y&nd/ adjective
synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION
Guess that's **** too, uh?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
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. |
Hi Frank, I think reviewers describe the change they heard re the Shaktis as "more focus," "more air," "more musical enjoyment." My sense, likewise, is that any change wrought by the devices is probably subtle.
I wanted to pick up on your comment that ABX testing is probably unsuitable to hearing subtle audio effects. Earlier in this thread, Jan spoke about the role expectations play, even physiologically, in the way the ear/brain perceives sound. Another poster (Andy C?) responded by telling of his tendency to wince at a certain point in a recording where his LP version of which used to skip. I've experienced this "expectation" at subtler levels in discerning differences between resistors, capacitors, inductors etc which I have placed into a circuit of which I am already familiar, ie, which, using expectation terminology, has already built up a set of sound or playback expectations in me. I've noticed in the component upgrading process that what I first "hear" when I hear an audible effect (Bybees provide a good test case for this) is more along the lines of a feeling, which might be called a certain, say, relief from strain, or a lightening in the presence of the music played. This relief from strain I almost invariably describe as lowered noise floor, greater air, greater transparency, etc---language similar to what reviewers of Shakti stones use.
So I think and have long experienced that "expectations" play a large role, though not the only role, in judging between components. To extend this discussion a little, discerning subtle differences in sound is a more time-involved process, IME, than, say, discerning differences in taste between different wines. Not so long ago, I had little idea what differentiated good from not so good wine. In the past two years, I have attended several wine tastings, and in that short period of time have learned to distinguish not only between various grapes (Merlot and Cabernet still confuse me), but to know what differentiates a good from a very good from an excellent wine. That learning period contrasts with the time it took me to discern and reliably pinpoint audible effects.
So far as the accuracy of my audio discernment skills, I have no doubt that I can hear audible differences replacing as little as a component in the audio chain. I recently replaced two iron-core inductors in my speakers with Jensen paper-and-wax inductors and not only I but my wife heard the difference, she not being schooled in the minutiae of audio upgrades. But here's the catch, so far as I've experienced: give me a speaker of which I'm not familiar, give me five minutes to listen to it (ten? twenty?), swap out iron-core inductors with air-core Jensens and I don't have confidence I could hear the difference. Why? Because I would not have had enough time to literally get a feel for the speakers.
Video effects, on the other hand, are entirely different. I have replaced capacitors in older TVs, and literally no-one familiar with the TV did not comment .... "wow!" |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Further to the difference between audio and video effects, I once had an old Marantz solid-state amp that had red LED distortion lights on it. Into the power supply of this amp I placed several small-value teflon caps. I think the power supply ran at +/- 40VDC, with correspondingly huge electrolytics (it was a 200W amp) in comparison to which the teflon caps were miniscule (a couple of microfarads). Very interestingly, I immediately noticed: greater air, far better bass, more headroom, seemingly greater power, better high frequencies. Others who knew me at the time couldn't hear the effects to the extent I could, but they could see the effects as the distortion LEDs blinked at a much higher rotation (at least 30 degrees) of the volume control. This video version of the audio effects was easy to demonstrate in ABX fashion ... a no brainer. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
I think, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I think.
Religion is opium for the masses.
This whole thread is stricly, purely and completely about religion, by any sensible definition one cares to use.
And most (all?) participants in the thread are invested into a particular religion to a point where the possibility of admitting their religion is actually wrong (Do not worry or be alarmed, by DEFINITION all religions are wrong, you either KNOW the divine or you DONT, believe or faith does not in the LEAST come into it) falls into a category of a lack of moral affordability for the position stating such.
I care funk all if you are roman catholic, evangelical, Jah's wittness, orthox cristian or jew, reformed jew, sufi, ishmaeli, suni or shiite, buddhist, zen buddhist, daoist, laoist, completly deraged, maxist, leninist, agnostic, gnostic, communist, anarchist, archist, capitalist, republicrat or democan, theist or atheist.
I do not even care if you believe the MEST (Matter Energy Space Time) Universe is real or illusion. You qualify as a clinical case of irrationalism, BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO BELIVE over KNOWING.
Can we for Funk's sake (okay, make that Funk, Jazz, Classical, Romantic, Barock, Rock and Herbie Hanckocks sake) just jettison all this useless ballast, consign moral affordability to the scrapheap of temporal junk it belong onto and get on WITH THE ACTUAL BUSINESS AT HAND (and not just in audio?)?
PLEASE?
Pretty Please?
All of you, please re-evaluate and evaluate your views and consider the point where scepticism becomes irrational believe (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what believe is capable of) and equally where a genuine conviction become fanaticism (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what fanaticism is capable of) and release ourselves from the prisons of our craniums?
You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt?
Remember, we ARE the universe, percieving the universe, creating the universe we percieve. Why settle for sloppy third hand junk, when YOU (yes, that means YOU over there in the cheap seats) can have IT ALL?
Well, suit yourselves.
As the Marsh Artabs used to say (before Saddam "resettled" them with money and guns from the US Government):
"The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens."
Sayonara.
ON WAKING UP - http://www.spiritwalk.org/demellowakingup.htm
Good morning, smell the coffee. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
I do have an open mind... just not so open that I can no longer prevent complete **** from entering. |
"In this world, there are two kinds of people-those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter."
Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst
Sayonara |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Duck! Here come the flames! |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Hi Frank, I think reviewers describe the change they heard re the Shaktis as "more focus," "more air," "more musical enjoyment." My sense, likewise, is that any change wrought by the devices is probably subtle.
|
Yes, reviewing and writing about what one hears (even in the most possibly subjective context) is difficult, made worse for l'anglaise by the fact that the english language (never mind the american one) lacks both depth, pecision and layers of abstraction, a fact observed and written about by orwell in 1984, if in the context of Newspeak....
Now, as someone who has been occasionally called upon to render a view (I do not hold opinions as such, I express view but behind it all I prefer to KNOW) I appreciate the difficulty to render in a form of english acceptable to (or ignored by) editors ones observatiosn once they pass from the obvious ("The speaker A had much MORE trebles and bass than speaker B but the added trebles and bass where wearisome and ill defined") to the "semi-subliminal" ("I found myself listening to music more and enjoying it more than I ever did before, despite the fact that the amplifier was deficient in the rendition of fine details and the absolute trebles and lacked bass control").
Even in German (a surgical language in my opinion though in that sense less ideal than greek or hebrew or perhaps that which we now call sanskrit are more ideal) it would be difficult to express such concepts, one we proceed from the gross to the subtle. The knowledge of fine wines, sexual partners and the live performance of music extends back millenia, so one expects a certain setteling down of vocabulary, ideas and processes. Compared to this Audio recording and reproduction are very much immature and questionable.
The real question is, do we care about music, it's recording and reproduction or do we care about "being right all the time"?
Sayonara |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Duck! Here come the flames! |
Are you sure it's an ugly duck? Hell, it may be a beautifull swan hiding from itself....
Sayonara |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Why? Because I would not have had enough time to literally get a feel for the speakers. |
That's very true...The more subtle things aren't always easy to spot in an unfamiliar system/environment.
The video/TV analogy does work to some extent but not universally as some tweaks applicable to audio simply won't have any effect on video/TV and vice versa.
| quote: | | You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt? |
Holy KOW errr... KYW you're just a prisoner like the rest of us, believe me, no one is above it.
To some people water is just water, wine is just wine and a car is just a car. So what, I hear you say?
Strange enough they seem somehow envious of someone elses' sensory capabilities when they're told it just ain't so for all of us.
I wonder why some of them feel so strongly compelled to convince us we're just like them....
Back to the Shakti it is then...someone is going after that million bucks...
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Everything is true-Everything is permissible!
Everything is a lie-Everything is permissible!
(both epitaphs attributed to Hassan Bin Sabah - founder of the order of the assasins and the Ishmaeli sect of islam) |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Holy KOW errr... KYW you're just a prisoner like the rest of us, believe me, no one is above it. |
Another believe.
Now one more believe for you. And maybe, if you believe ME rather than yourself....
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
no one is above it. |
That which percieves is above that which is percieved.
(statement of fact here)
You are all prisoners by CHOICE, simply because you BELIEVE (absolutely inaccuratly) that this, which percieves is subordinate to that which is being percieved. Put the funking horse before the cart, tear the roof of dah sucka and free your booty, your mind WILL follow. Chose to disbelieve and remove the exterior conditioning.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
(Most modern renderings arem less poetic "we see in a mirror, dimly,")
Sayonara |
|
|
| Variac |
| quote: | | You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt? |
Wow! so you are the only one on this thread that this doesn't apply to? You're immune? You Know? Lucky You! |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
Fellows, we are talking about the following:
Which are supposed to be placed on top of speakers thusly:
These are supposed to produce a good effect on your listening system. This is a commerical product, which costs actual money. It is sold to individuals, who are seeking to benefit from it in their own personal listening.
We have heard that ABX testing is not the way to go here.
Since the whole purpose of this product is to enhance an individual's listening experience, can someone propose a test for an individual that proves some benefit for an individual? Maybe not 100% of the time, but above random?
Because if such a test is theoretically impossible, is it fair for Shakti to market these products for people to use in their individual sound systems, designed for their individual listening? |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jan, have you received your e-mail from Ben? Care to retract? |
No, no email yet, but I'm at work now. I just send you a private email where you could reach me if it is important.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
I think, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I think.
Religion is opium for the masses.
This whole thread is stricly, purely and completely about religion, by any sensible definition one cares to use.
[random snip]
I care funk all if you are roman catholic, evangelical, Jah's wittness, orthox cristian or jew, reformed jew, sufi, ishmaeli, suni or shiite, buddhist, zen buddhist, daoist, laoist, completly deraged, maxist, leninist, agnostic, gnostic, communist, anarchist, archist, capitalist, republicrat or democan, theist or atheist.
[random snip]
Can we for Funk's sake (okay, make that Funk, Jazz, Classical, Romantic, Barock, Rock and Herbie Hanckocks sake) just jettison all this useless ballast, consign moral affordability to the scrapheap of temporal junk it belong onto and get on WITH THE ACTUAL BUSINESS AT HAND (and not just in audio?)?
PLEASE?
Pretty Please?
All of you, please re-evaluate and evaluate your views and consider the point where scepticism becomes irrational believe (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what believe is capable of) and equally where a genuine conviction become fanaticism (look up the spanish inquisition as an example what fanaticism is capable of) and release ourselves from the prisons of our craniums?
You are all lifers in the prison of your heads, don't you think it's bleedin time for a prison revolt?
[random snip]
Well, suit yourselves.
As the Marsh Artabs used to say (before Saddam "resettled" them with money and guns from the US Government):
"The nature of rain is the same, but it makes thorns grow in the marshes and flowers in the gardens."
Sayonara.
ON WAKING UP - http://www.spiritwalk.org/demellowakingup.htm
Good morning, smell the coffee. |
Aw come on, just a few more posts, I'm almost done with my thesis on Group Dynamics:D
Jan Didden |
|
|
| arniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Konnichiwa,
Another believe.
Now one more believe for you. And maybe, if you believe ME rather than yourself....
That which percieves is above that which is percieved.
(statement of fact here)
You are all prisoners by CHOICE, simply because you BELIEVE (absolutely inaccuratly) that this, which percieves is subordinate to that which is being percieved. Put the funking horse before the cart, tear the roof of dah sucka and free your booty, your mind WILL follow. Chose to disbelieve and remove the exterior conditioning.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly."
(Most modern renderings arem less poetic "we see in a mirror, dimly,")
Sayonara |
Apologies if I am misinterpreting your ramblings and randowm quotes :) , but if you're saying that any form of belief is bad, how do you deal with events that happen outside of your immediate awareness or in the past? Or in fact, anything that you are unable to sense first-hand, from the origins of the universe to exactly what's happening to the electrons in a length of wire. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by kelticwizard
Since the whole purpose of this product is to enhance an individual's listening experience, can someone propose a test for an individual that proves some benefit for an individual? Maybe not 100% of the time, but above random? |
Purchase a pair, put them in your audio set-up, listen for a few months, remove them, see if you notice a difference. If the purchase price is straining to you, you are playing in the wrong back yard. You might, furthermore, want to check out what audio reviewers have said about the component to see if they put any stock in it working.
Life is very simple after all, and far above random. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by arniel
Apologies if I am misinterpreting your ramblings and randowm quotes :) , but if you're saying that any form of belief is bad, how do you deal with events that happen outside of your immediate awareness or in the past? Or in fact, anything that you are unable to sense first-hand, from the origins of the universe to exactly what's happening to the electrons in a length of wire. |
No, what I am actually saying is this:
"In this world, there are two kinds of people-those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter."
Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst
Sayonara |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
I just got off the phone with Kramer at the James Randi Educational Foundation. I explained to Kramer my concerns that devising a test to win the JREF $1M prize using Shakti stones probably was not possible because the mechanism at play in the Stones probably is a form of EMI filtering, which is not a paranormal mechanism. Demonstrating that EMI filtering creates audible effects does not demonstrate the existence of the paranormal etc, ergo no cash prize.
I then explained, by analogy, that upgrading components in an amplifier can create audible effects for known or at least plausibly scientific reasons. I suggested that the American military, for instance, uses $100 resistors in their cruise missiles, because those resistors, among other things, allow for a cleaner, less distorted electrical throughput. In the realm of audio, cleaner throughput can render audible differences, which has caused some audio types to use expensive resistors and other electronic building blocks.
I then suggested that audio cables are normally shielded to reduce EMI interference, and that a reduction of EMI in this instance can be quite audible.
Kramer evidently understood my concern that, if what we're dealing with in the case of Shakti stones was something of the nature of "upgraded resistors" or "cable shielding"---that is, a scientifically explainable audible effect---then we would have a problem devising a test. So he then conferenced James Randi onto the line.
James explained to me that to win the $1M, all a person needs to do is to "demonstrate the existence of the paranormal," which he then described as an observable effect for which there is no known explanation. I then ran through with him my concerns that the Shakti stones work, assuming they do work, on the basis of known scientific laws, that the stones contain inside them magnets and such, and that they work in a fashion not too dissimilar to using a grounded piece of aluminum foil (he reference to aluminum foil was from James Randi).
James Randi then suggested he's currently xraying some stones to find out if there's anything inside them. I suggested he simply break them apart, but the stones are evidently on loan. He then told me that when someone claims that a stereo is improved by placing these stones "in the same room" as the stereo, that claim has no explanation (and is presumably, then, a claim for a paranormal effect).
Those of you who thought I offering giving "semantic" "lawyerly" evasions by suggesting a test using Shakti stones could not win the $1M are wrong. You were also wrong in suggesting that James Randi, due to his high intelligence, could not have misunderstood what the claim for Shakti stones was about. Reread my and John Curl's posts. Phone the Foundation yourselves if you need more than my report above. |
|
|
| TNT |
I would like to see a controlled and documented ABX test anyway.
I mean, its not like - OK that's the proof that they actually work, is it. Its not paranormal, but as I doubt it can be detected in ABX, from my wiev it's.... expensive.
But a failed challange had been more interesting.
Good work serengetiplains!
/ |
|
|
| john curl |
Sere, (sorry, I don't have your short name) RIGHT ON! NOW, this is RESEARCH! 'Skeptics' can be amazing! They don't look at the patent, test the product with test equipment, or read the results of others. They can JUST PRESUME that the object is fake with a 'story' attached. IF the Shakti Stones don't do what they measure that they do on their website, then THEY are in line for a lawsuit! Get real folks!
Also, Kuei, RIGHT ON, as well! We are kindred spirits, yet we do not know one another. "In another time and place, we could be friends". (Probably out of some movie or TV series) ;-) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
I would like to see a controlled and documented ABX test anyway.
I mean, its not like - OK that's the proof that they actually work, is it. Its not paranormal, but as I doubt it can be detected in ABX, from my wiev it's.... expensive.
But a failed challane had meen more interesting. |
It's not expensive. Purchase two stones, devise a test, perform the test and report your results within 30 days. Return the stones to get your money back if the test fails to demonstrate anything to you. Where's the expense? Mail? |
|
|
| TNT |
predictable but unlogical .....
/ |
|
|
| SY |
| Actually, a blind test of these without using ABX methods is rather simple to devise. The security aspect with a mil on the line is the tougher part. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Sere, (sorry, I don't have your short name) RIGHT ON! NOW, this is RESEARCH! 'Skeptics' can be amazing! They don't look at the patent, test the product with test equipment, or read the results of others. They can JUST PRESUME that the object is fake with a 'story' attached. IF the Shakti Stones don't do what they measure that they do on their website, then THEY are in line for a lawsuit! Get real folks!
Also, Kuei, RIGHT ON, as well! We are kindred spirits, yet we do not know one another. "In another time and place, we could be friends". (Probably out of some movie or TV series) ;-) |
Hi John, my name is Tom by the way, I'm a lawyer practicing high-level commercial litigation in Vancouver Canada. Yes, straight from the horse's mouth, James Randi is concerned only with debunking claims asserting the existence of the paranormal, as the legally applicable wording in his "Application for Claimant Status" makes clear. His $1M test does not apply to Shakti stones.
The presumption I've seen in certain persons on this forum that designers of such products as Shakti stones are frauds is not only objectionable to those who attempt to make a living selling products to which they dedicate no small time and energy, it borders (or in many instances I've come across, actually crosses the line of) defamation. A lawyer needing income would have a heyday on this forum. I've seen instances, even, where you were defamed. Then as the story goes, when I did something to deter one such instance of what I felt to be defamation against you, my post was sent to Texas. Unprofessional, in my books. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
Yes, straight from the horse's mouth, James Randi is concerned only with debunking claims asserting the existence of the paranormal, as the legally applicable wording in his "Application for Claimant Status" makes clear. His $1M test does not apply to Shakti stones. |
Then it would likely apply even less to a wide range of other Audio Esotherica, normally loved to be hated by the Audio Pelicanists. Good work, thank you.
It also removed Randi from the group of Charlatans and into the group where it is just shoddy research of the subject.
Meanwhile I suggest to others (and this may include the Great Randi) to make fewer a priori assumptions and to keep an open mind. After all, better an open mind than an open leg....
Sayonara |
|
|
| sam9 |
If Randi is indeed backing off that's a shame. I was looking forward to blind test.
Meanwhile, Shakti-innovations might gain in credability if they published some absorption spectra and were a bit more forthcomming with a theoretical explanation about which of the absorbed RF bands interact with loudspeakers and the nature of the interaction. I am personally still keptical about how a passive object that may absorb radiation in the Mhz and low GHz bands is going to have an effect on loudspeakers. You know, if the claim had focused on an interaction with MOSFETs (where DIYers often have to cope with RF at least in the form of oscillations), the prima facie plausability would have been substantialy higher. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
Then it would likely apply even less to a wide range of other Audio Esotherica, normally loved to be hated by the Audio Pelicanists. |
You are correct, Kuei. James Randi has set himself up as a cultural counterpoint, if you will, to those who assert the existence of that which Randi might style as repeatably unverifiable. In that general supernatural, paranormal category are UFOs, Sylvia Browne predictions of the future, remote viewing, hands-on healing, etc etc.
I admire that he has put himself on the line with his $1M challenge, and I don't think it a slight against him that he does not, I think, well understand things like Shakti stones. He probably is not an audio type, and probably has little experience with subject matters dotting the pages of this forum. I can understand why he would issue his challenge against what he probably thought was a blob of manicured concrete named "Shakti" and bearing a $200+ price tag that, when placed anywhere in a room with an operating stereo system, magically produced audible effects. He just misunderstood what Shakti stones are about.
I think his challenge, on the other hand, would apply to "put a cd in the freezer with a picture of yourself and when playing the cd touch the picture and you'll hear a difference ..."
But don't get me wrong, I do not subscribe to the view that, just because we cannot explain it, the thing or effect in question does not exist. That view is silly and implies NO FURTHER ROOM for scientific exploration or development. |
|
|
| Lusso5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
The presumption I've seen in certain persons on this forum that designers of such products as Shakti stones are frauds is not only objectionable to those who attempt to make a living selling products to which they dedicate no small time and energy, it borders (or in many instances I've come across, actually crosses the line of) defamation. |
The basic test for a defamation suit is "substatial damage to reputation." So far I've seen on this thread I've seen the stones touted by a famous, and respected, audio designer, and an audio engineer and reviewer. I've seen the hobbyists be skeptical with humor.
Throwing around defamation is a bit of a stretch dont you think?
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
A lawyer needing income would have a heyday on this forum. |
No offense to you, but in my opinion, and by your statements above, it seems lawyers are always looking for a buck.
If a "lawyer needing income" is looking for a fight, Randi would be the only shot for defamation.
Leave this forum alone...:mad: |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by sam9
Meanwhile, Shakti-innovations might gain in credability if they published some absorption spectra and were a bit more forthcomming with a theoretical explanation about which of the absorbed RF bands interact with loudspeakers and the nature of the interaction. I am personally still keptical about how a passive object that may absorb radiation in the Mhz and low GHz bands is going to have an effect on loudspeakers. You know, if the claim had focused on an interaction with MOSFETs (where DIYers often have to cope with RF at least in the form of oscillations), the prima facie plausability would have been substantialy higher. |
Frankly, I don't care much about absorption spectra. Unless, of course, they involve comparisons to roast chickens. What I want to see is actual controlled listening tests. Anecdotes are a nice start but a lousy beginning. This stuff is being promoted and sold for money, it's not a diy project. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
Leave this forum alone...:mad: |
I won't leave this forum alone because I am part of it and I have an interest in how it operates. You are wrong on your definition of defamation. Damages are presumed and need not be proven in any case where a person's professional or commercial reputation is diminished. The threshold for proving diminishment is lower than you think.
But I don't want to argue law, especially if I have to teach it. I *am* concerned that less is done than I think required about statements imputing or insinuating fraud on the part of certain audio designers. Reread this thread and you'll find, in fact, that some posters wrote such statements. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lusso5
No offense to you, but in my opinion, and by your statements above, it seems lawyers are always looking for a buck. |
What do you mean I'm after a buck? Be a man and have some respect. My concern is for real people, which is the very concern driving the law of defamation, which is: tread very lightly when a person's means of living is concerned because little by way of insinuation is actually required to financially hurt someone. |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | Frankly, I don't care much about absorption spectra. |
I don't much either. It was my response to the many comments that the stones really do have a physical as opposed to paranormal "theory of operation". This was my way of raising a eyebrow and muttering, "Oh, really. Show me more."
BTW, I saw "I, Robot" on Tuesday and now when checking this thread, I can't get the scene out of my mind where Will Smith sneezes. |
|
|
| Lusso5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
I won't leave this forum alone because I am part of it and I have an interest in how it operates. |
Tom, I wasn't directing that toward you. Unless you plan on suing anyone this thread for defamation... ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
You are wrong on your definition of defamation. Damages are presumed and need not be proven in any case where a person's professional or commercial reputation is diminished. |
I disagree. http://www.adidem.org/articles/DS5.html
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
The threshold for proving diminishment is lower than you think.
But I don't want to argue law, especially if I have to teach it. I *am* concerned that less is done than I think required about statements imputing or insinuating fraud on the part of certain audio designers. Reread this thread and you'll find, in fact, that some posters wrote such statements. |
I've followed this thread since it's first post. Some would think KYW thinks were all frauds because were all "prisoners of our minds." By your definition Tom, "damage is presumed", and I presume he thinks we're all too stuipid to hear the difference the stones can make.
Real info regarding
defamation on the internet if anyone is interested.
Regarding the stones, I've looked for a place to review them, but I have to drive a couple of hours either way. When business, or otherwise takes me that direction, I will do a review and post it here. |
|
|
| TNT |
OK!
I also re-read the tread and in fact regeret some "choise" of words which was made in the "heat" of the discussion. Thank You for an interesting debate. I have learnt a lot - also english, as I have numerous times been forced to consult a dictionary.
/ |
|
|
| andy_c |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
What do you mean I'm after a buck? Be a man and have some respect. My concern is for real people[...] |
ROFL! |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
What, have we got a pelicanitis epidemic brewing here? :)
se |
|
|
| sam9 |
| quote: | | You are wrong on your definition of defamation. Damages are presumed and need not be proven in any case where a person's professional or commercial reputation is diminished. |
| | | |
