http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8


This ABX Comparator is the ideal setup to test audio devices and systems. It
generates a random "A or B" switching signal, so that the user does not know
whether the item or variable being examined is in or out of the circuit, and
it accepts the user's decisions and stores them. When the Moment of Truth
arrives, the user sees the results of a proper double-blind test. This is a
setup that the audio quacks strenuously avoid, in fear that their fakery
will be exposed.
Today I sent out the following e-mail letter to eleven audio reviewers who
showed up on the web pages of the Shakti Stones and P.W.B. Electronics, as
endorsers of some audio nonsense mentioned here last week, and to both
manufacturers of the devices as well. The letter explains itself:


My name is James Randi. I am the president of the James Randi Educational
Foundation (address and contacts listed below) and I am an investigator of
unusual claims. This Foundation has a prize of one million dollars that we
offer, details of which are to be found at www.randi.org/research/index.html
and www.randi.org/research/challenge.html.
As a reviewer for a major audio publication, I'm sure that you will find
the following offer of great interest, both from the point of view of
validating your expert judgment, and adding substantially to your net worth.

Please refer to www.randi.org/jr/073004an.html#3 and go to the item "THE
JREF MILLION IS SURELY WON" to learn of the items - the "Shakti Stones" and
P.W.B. Electronics' "Electret Foil" and "Red X Pen" - that I am referring to
here. In my opinion - and I have none of your expertise, I freely admit -
these are farcical in nature. Yet experts such as yourself have endorsed
these products, and that support indicates that the JREF million-dollar
prize should surely be offered, either to you personally, or to the
manufacturers of these products - who have been similarly informed on this
date.

If you require further information concerning details of this endeavor,
please contact me at and inquire. This is a valid offer, a
serious offer, and a sincere offer. Should any of these products prove to
work as advertised, the first person who is able to demonstrate the efficacy
of any of them, will be the winner of the JREF prize as described in the
rules and details to be found at the above references.

I await your response with great interest.

The above e-mail message was sent to:

Frank Doris, at The Absolute Sound:

Clay Swartz, Clark Johnson, and David Robinson at Positive Feedback:
, , and


Larry Kaye, Wayne Donnelly, and Bill Brassington at fi:
, , and

Bascom King at Audio:

Wes Phillips at SoundStage:

Jim Merod at Jazz Times:

Dick Olsher at Enjoy The Music:

Peter and May Belt at "P.W.B. Electronics":

Benjamin Piazza at "Shakti Innovations":

Let's see what reaction is received - if any - to this clearly-outlined
challenge. Remember, all we're doing here is asking the reviewers - the
trained, experienced experts, the responsible endorsers of these products -
to repeat their tests of the items, but this time under double-blind,
secure, conditions. And we're making the same offer to the manufacturers,
who we would expect to be even more sensitive and capable of performing such
tests.

WE ARE OFFERING ONE MILLION DOLLARS IF THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CLAIM THEY CAN
DO, WHAT THEY DO PROFESSIONALLY, IN A FIELD WHERE THEY CLAIM EXPERTISE FAR
BEYOND THAT OF MERE MORTALS. WE ASK FOR NO INVESTMENT FROM THEM, WE DO NOT
CHARGE THEM FOR PARTICIPATING - AND WE STAND TO GAIN NOTHING BUT WE DO RISK
THE LOSS OF THE MILLION DOLLARS PRIZE MONEY.

I am a mere mortal, unencumbered by academic degrees or claims of audio
expertise. Show me, and win a million dollars...

(Sylvia Browne just called and offered refuge and professional evasion
advice to all the above-listed.)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
http://www.randi.org/jr/080504string.html#8


This ABX Comparator is the ideal setup to test audio devices and systems.
It
generates a random "A or B" switching signal, so that the user does not
know
whether the item or variable being examined is in or out of the circuit,
and
it accepts the user's decisions and stores them. When the Moment of Truth
arrives, the user sees the results of a proper double-blind test. This is
a
setup that the audio quacks strenuously avoid, in fear that their fakery
will be exposed.
Today I sent out the following e-mail letter to eleven audio reviewers who
showed up on the web pages of the Shakti Stones and P.W.B. Electronics, as
endorsers of some audio nonsense mentioned here last week, and to both
manufacturers of the devices as well. The letter explains itself:


My name is James Randi. I am the president of the James Randi
Educational
Foundation (address and contacts listed below) and I am an investigator of
unusual claims. This Foundation has a prize of one million dollars that we
offer, details of which are to be found at
www.randi.org/research/index.html
and www.randi.org/research/challenge.html.
As a reviewer for a major audio publication, I'm sure that you will find
the following offer of great interest, both from the point of view of
validating your expert judgment, and adding substantially to your net
worth.

Please refer to www.randi.org/jr/073004an.html#3 and go to the item "THE
JREF MILLION IS SURELY WON" to learn of the items - the "Shakti Stones"
and
P.W.B. Electronics' "Electret Foil" and "Red X Pen" - that I am referring
to
here. In my opinion - and I have none of your expertise, I freely admit -
these are farcical in nature. Yet experts such as yourself have endorsed
these products, and that support indicates that the JREF million-dollar
prize should surely be offered, either to you personally, or to the
manufacturers of these products - who have been similarly informed on this
date.

If you require further information concerning details of this endeavor,
please contact me at and inquire. This is a valid offer, a
serious offer, and a sincere offer. Should any of these products prove to
work as advertised, the first person who is able to demonstrate the
efficacy
of any of them, will be the winner of the JREF prize as described in the
rules and details to be found at the above references.

I await your response with great interest.

The above e-mail message was sent to:

Frank Doris, at The Absolute Sound:

Clay Swartz, Clark Johnson, and David Robinson at Positive Feedback:
, , and


Larry Kaye, Wayne Donnelly, and Bill Brassington at fi:
, , and


Bascom King at Audio:

Wes Phillips at SoundStage:

Jim Merod at Jazz Times:

Dick Olsher at Enjoy The Music:

Peter and May Belt at "P.W.B. Electronics":

Benjamin Piazza at "Shakti Innovations":

Let's see what reaction is received - if any - to this clearly-outlined
challenge. Remember, all we're doing here is asking the reviewers - the
trained, experienced experts, the responsible endorsers of these
products -
to repeat their tests of the items, but this time under double-blind,
secure, conditions. And we're making the same offer to the manufacturers,
who we would expect to be even more sensitive and capable of performing
such
tests.

WE ARE OFFERING ONE MILLION DOLLARS IF THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CLAIM THEY
CAN
DO, WHAT THEY DO PROFESSIONALLY, IN A FIELD WHERE THEY CLAIM EXPERTISE FAR
BEYOND THAT OF MERE MORTALS. WE ASK FOR NO INVESTMENT FROM THEM, WE DO NOT
CHARGE THEM FOR PARTICIPATING - AND WE STAND TO GAIN NOTHING BUT WE DO
RISK
THE LOSS OF THE MILLION DOLLARS PRIZE MONEY.

I am a mere mortal, unencumbered by academic degrees or claims of audio
expertise. Show me, and win a million dollars...

(Sylvia Browne just called and offered refuge and professional evasion
advice to all the above-listed.)




Dear Arny,

I wonder if any manufacturer of any audio equipment has taken up the
challenge?

I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969 comparing
valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very little
difference.

Jem

"Jem Raid" wrote in message


I wonder if any manufacturer of any audio equipment has taken up the
challenge?

I doubt it. Such published DBTs that have been done were done mostly by
magazines.

I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969
comparing valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very
little difference.

I wonder what he thought "was very little difference"?

You may find this link interesting:
http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

If the site is to be believed, making an attempt on Randi's
million is not as simple as it sounds. I've no idea how
seriously to take this website, although at first glance it
seems to take a reasonably balanced view. On the other hand,
I've also no idea how seriously to take Randi and his offers!

Graeme Cogger wrote:

You may find this link interesting:
http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

If the site is to be believed, making an attempt on Randi's
million is not as simple as it sounds. I've no idea how
seriously to take this website, although at first glance it
seems to take a reasonably balanced view. On the other hand,
I've also no idea how seriously to take Randi and his offers!

With regard to supposed ambiguities in the terms of Randi's challenge, it
says

==================================
The second ambiguity is in Clause 4, which says that "Tests will be designed
in such a way that no "judging" procedure is required. Results will be
self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules which will be
agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking
place."

This means, quite reasonably, that there will be no interminable arguments
by 'experts' over statistical measurements. Either the spoon bends or it
doesn't: either the claimant reads minds or he doesn't. The written rules,
agreed up front, will decide.

But it also means that there will be no objective, independent judging or
adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional
scientists. Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have
been met -- whether the metal was bent psychically, or the electronic
instrument deflected by mental power, or the remote image was correctly
reproduced. In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have
been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that
prevails.
==================================

If no judgement, is required, then no "objective, independent judging or
adjudication, by scientific criteria, carried out by qualified professional
scientists" is required, either. It's interesting to note that the author
prefers to imply that scientific adjudication is 'missing' rather than 'not
required'. For some reason, the author then makes a leap of logic and
assumes that it must therefore be Randi himself who is 'judging' the
validity of the result. I think the author of this page should go find out
what 'self evident' means.

The supposed knock-back that a challenger received from Randi is also
interesting. The author says...


==================================
"In June 1999, a Mr Rico Kolodzey of Germany wrote to James Randi and
challenged for the reputed $1 million prize. Mr Kolodzey is one of several
thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone,
absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them."
==================================

And then goes on to *quote* Randi's response...

==================================
Mr. Kolodzey:
Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.

Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products
except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you
think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not
interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence
with you on the matter.
==================================

....and backs this quote up with a scan of what looks like the hardcopy
letter, signed by Randi. I note that a similar quality of evidence is not
presented with regard to the claimant's application to challenge Randi -
that challenge is only *described* in the author's own words, and not
quoted. In the interest of balance, the exact text of the claimant's
application should also be quoted. Without that, how do we know that the
illicited response received by the claimant wasn't justified?


The poor reasoning and dodgy presentation of evidence that I noted during my
cursory glance didn't give me the impression that this "alternative science"
site, or its author, offer a balanced view. I would have gone to the Randi
web site for a look, but the link given by the author isn't working (nor is
the root URL in the link).


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jem Raid" wrote in message


I wonder if any manufacturer of any audio equipment has taken up the
challenge?

I doubt it. Such published DBTs that have been done were done mostly by
magazines.

I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969
comparing valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very
little difference.

I wonder what he thought "was very little difference"?

Dear Arny,

Here is the 1969 article from Wireless World,
http://www.tcaas.btinternet.co.uk/jlh1969.pdf

The 'Williamson' referred to is a valve amplifier in case that isn't too
clear.

Jem

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:22:30 +0100, Graeme Cogger
wrote:

You may find this link interesting:
http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

If the site is to be believed, making an attempt on Randi's
million is not as simple as it sounds. I've no idea how
seriously to take this website, although at first glance it
seems to take a reasonably balanced view. On the other hand,
I've also no idea how seriously to take Randi and his offers!

I've seen a TV programme in which a homoeopathic medicine company
accepted the Randi challenge, fully convinced that they would reap the
$1M prize. Of course in the well-proctored DBT organised by Randi, the
results came out exactly as one would predict - homoeopathy was a
scam.

I don't think they actually include that test in their advertising
citations though...

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969
comparing valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very
little difference.

I wonder what he thought "was very little difference"?

Since 1969 there have been a few developments in transistor design. But
valves?

--
*We waste time, so you don't have to *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Jem Raid" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jem Raid" wrote in message


I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969
comparing valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very
little difference.

I wonder what he thought "was very little difference"?

Here is the 1969 article from Wireless World,
http://www.tcaas.btinternet.co.uk/jlh1969.pdf

Outstandingly clean text scan! Thanks, this is a classic.

"Unfortunately, it is not possible to simulate under laboratory conditions
the complex loads or intricate waveform structures presented to the
amplifier when a loudspeaker system is employed toreproduce the everyday
sounds of speech and music"

This problem has been addressed he

http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm

"The possession of a good standard of reference is a great help in
comparative trials of this nature, and
the author has been fortunate in the possession, for many years, of a
carefully and expensively built
"Williamson" amplifier, the performance of which has proved, in listening
trials, to equal or exceed, by
greater or lesser margins, that of any other audio amplifier with which the
author has been able to make
comparisons."

www.pcabx.com reintroduces an old absolute standard - effectively a straight
wire. Practically speaking the standard is actually a straight wire
stretched between two audio interfaces, but the sonic properties of those
audio interfaces are up for public inspection at:
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm

The 'Williamson' referred to is a valve amplifier in case that isn't
too clear.

Good point, because I believe there was also a SS Williamson that was heavly
promoted in the US by a magazine then called Audio Amateur.

"However, in the past, when these tests were made for personal curiosity,
and some few minutes could
elapse in the transfer of input and output leads from one amplifier to the
other, the comparative
performance of some designs has been so close that the conclusion drawn was
that there was really
very little to choose between them.:

This can now be easily reduced to an arbitrarily short period of time.

I think that our current standards for "sounds the same" are far more
sensitive.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
I remember that John Linsley-Hood did something similar in 1969
comparing valve and transistor amps, he reported that there was very
little difference.

I wonder what he thought "was very little difference"?

Since 1969 there have been a few developments in transistor design.
But valves?

Agreed, but I was thinking about our standards for what constitutes a
sensitive listening test.