Do you believe in Magic?
Audio Magic, that is.
Let's say that Magic is any effect not explainable by known physical laws. Every audiophile is familiar with debates about Audio Magic, as evidenced by endless threads about power cables.
I recently had an experience that made me question my long held skepticism about Magic. On a whim, I bought some Stillpoints ERS Fabric. I installed it in my preamp (which is filled with noisy digital circuitry) and a reclocker (also noisy) and...
Something happened. I don't know what exactly, but something. Two things in particular seemed to change... the decay of notes, and instrument timbres. Both changed for the better. But where did this change occur? In my listening room? Or in my mind?
If the change was in my listening room, then Magic exists. If the change was in my mind, then Magic does not exist.
One of the great Ideological Divides in audio is the divide between Believers and Skeptics. I honestly don't know if I'm a Believer or a Skeptic.
Do you believe in Magic?
Bryon
Let's say that Magic is any effect not explainable by known physical laws. Every audiophile is familiar with debates about Audio Magic, as evidenced by endless threads about power cables.
I recently had an experience that made me question my long held skepticism about Magic. On a whim, I bought some Stillpoints ERS Fabric. I installed it in my preamp (which is filled with noisy digital circuitry) and a reclocker (also noisy) and...
Something happened. I don't know what exactly, but something. Two things in particular seemed to change... the decay of notes, and instrument timbres. Both changed for the better. But where did this change occur? In my listening room? Or in my mind?
If the change was in my listening room, then Magic exists. If the change was in my mind, then Magic does not exist.
One of the great Ideological Divides in audio is the divide between Believers and Skeptics. I honestly don't know if I'm a Believer or a Skeptic.
Do you believe in Magic?
Bryon
Showing 50 responses by bryoncunningham
01-22-12: Tmsorosk I agree with this. Although A/B testing has its place, long term unreflective listening is the most informative way to evaluate sound quality, IME. 01-22-12: Chadeffect The use of the word 'Magic' is of course ironic. I understand that ERS fabric is designed to, in the words of Stillpoints, "absorb, diffuse, and reflect EMI/RFI energy." What is puzzling to me is how ERS fabric accomplishes this, given its materials and design. Again, in the words of Stillpoints... "The core of ERS is made of a blend of carbon fibers of various lengths and sizes... these fibers are coated with metals, such as nickel." I am no EE, but how that design can absorb, diffuse, and reflect EMI/RFI energy is a mystery. Incidentally, according to Stillpoints... "ERS does not operate under the same principles as a shield." Just what principles it DOES operate under are left unspecified. I assume it's Magic principles. 01-22-12: Almarg Eminently reasonable words from an eminently reasonable man. You are an EE, Al. Can you conjure an explanation for how this Magic Cloth works? Bryon |
Wow, Al. Stillpoints should hire you to write copy! :-) Seriously, thank you for your thoughtful answer. You are great at putting things in terms that folks like me can understand. I know that your explanations are partly speculative, but acknowledging that, there is still something that puzzles me... How is it that SO LITTLE conductive material can have a perceptible effect on sound quality? Am I wrong in my assumption that diffusion/reflection/absorption of EMI/RFI typically requires something more substantial? bc |
Thank you for clarifying, Elizabeth. FWIW, my own personal history of skepticism about what I've been playfully referring to as 'magic' is counterbalanced by my willingness to try nearly anything. Among the "magical" devices in my current system are tweaks from Shunyata, Synergistic Research, Gingko, Bright Star, Mapleshade, Black Diamond Racing, and now Stillpoints. Collectively, this adds up to a sizable investment in equipment that, quite frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it does. I know very well what THE MANUFACTURER says it does. But that is something else entirely. You may wonder why I would keep this stuff if I'm uncertain about what it does. The answer is that I'm irrational. "What if you sell it and lose something critical to sound quality?" my irrational mind says. "Okay," I tell it, "we can keep it." Then my irrational mind goes to sleep and I'm left there wondering why I've spent thousands of dollars on Magic. Bryon |
That all makes sense, Al. Still, I feel like there's still a touch of Magic in it, in the sense I stated in the OP. Among the stranger things commonly reported about ERS fabric is that using too much of it tends to diminish high frequencies, as Chad described in this thread. That is puzzling to me. Could it be that using too much ERS fabric somehow affects certain circuits in the way that high capacitance interconnects can act as a low pass filter? And something else you said struck me: ...the only digital circuit points that would be susceptible to rfi-related noise are those at which jitter might be an issue. Eureka! THAT explains my experience with ERS fabric. The two changes I reported in the OP were... --the decay of notes --instrument timbres ...both of which I associate with jitter. That association is a result of my experience adding a reclocker to my system. The raison d'être of the reclocker is to reduce jitter. Adding the reclocker provided me with an impression of what jitter sounds like, or more importantly, WHAT THE REDUCTION OF JITTER SOUNDS LIKE... It sounds like what I heard after installing the ERS fabric. This explanation is consistent with my placement of the fabric: 1. preamp power supply 2. reclocker (with an Audiocom Superclock 4) 3. preamp master clock (another Audiocom Superclock 4) #2 and #3 are both digital circuits where the amount of jitter has a significant effect on sound quality. I think I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that the ERS fabric is helping to reduce jitter. Thank you, Al, for leading me to this realization. I still don't know whether Magic exists, but I am more confident that the changes I heard exist in my listening room and not in my mind. bc |
I used a liberal amount of ERS fabric, and I didn't notice a diminishment of high frequencies. That could be because of where I placed it, or if your hypothesis is correct, it could be because it merely removed some high frequency hiss. I agree with your observation that some audiophiles perceive high frequency hiss as "air" or ambience. Personally, I tend to perceive it as noise. In fact, with the ERS fabric installed, I can say that there is simultaneously LESS hiss and MORE ambience. bc |
Others (in posts such as this) then proceeded to slam him as a quack. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying here, Elizabeth, but you appear to be referring to my post initiating this thread. If so, I'd like to point out something that I thought was self evident... My post was ironic. If you read my comments throughout the rest of the thread, you will see that the only person I'm "slamming" is myself. Bryon |
01-23-12: Mrtennis I did. It was the second sentence in the OP: "Let's say that Magic is any effect not explainable by known physical laws." That is a definition. It may not be a definition you like. i suppose in audio "things", which seem on the surface have no reason to have an effect upon the sound of a stereo system, might be construed as magic... Ahh... literalism. MrT, the use of the word 'magic' is ironic. I said as much in an earlier post. Tubegroover was exactly correct in his interpretation of my remarks. I'm using the word 'magic' to refer to an effect about which there is little understanding, even among experts. The contrast to magic is mechanism. So that I'm not accused of failing to define 'mechanism,' let's say that a mechanism is any physical entity, property, or law that explains an observable effect. That brings me to an observation about magic and mechanism that I hope will constructively contribute to this thread... One man's magic is another man's mechanism. That is to say, the understanding of physical laws varies from individual to individual. Al has an expert's understanding of physical laws. I have a layman's understanding. As a consequence, some things that are magic to me may be nothing more than mechanisms to Al. Put another way, magic isn't magic to a magician. Which brings me to Geoff's reference to the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote about sufficiently advanced technologies being indistinguishable from magic. The essence of that insight is identical to the observation that one man's magic is another man's mechanism. Which brings me back to magic in audio. No doubt there are some observable effects that are unexplainable to me but are explainable to experts. But there are other observable effects that are unexplainable EVEN TO EXPERTS. And that is why I call it Magic. Bryon |
01-26-12: Sonicbeauty Although you go on to say I am not judging, no right or wrong, your comments read like a criticism of how people spend their time, both here on Agon and at home in their listening rooms. If your post is intended to be merely an observation, then your observation is a truism. The fact that audiophiles spend much of their time talking about equipment is patently true but entirely uninformative, since every person who participates in these discussions is aware of it. But of course you know that, being a regular participant yourself. So its hard to believe that you would post such a vacuous observation. That leads us back to Your comments are a criticism. Your tone seems to support that interpretation: And please, dont serve me the argument that in the long run, this will make us enjoy the artist more. It may, of course, but by the time this happens, another upgrade-tweak-inducing in satisfaction will surface and start this whole quest for ''finding the air around the instruments''(that's what it's all about right?) process again. That doesnt sound like a non-judgmental observation to me. Maybe Im being touchy. Taking that risk Criticizing hobbyists for how they conduct themselves is odd. If a person flies kites as a hobby, is he subject to criticism? That seems to defeat one of the most significant joys of having a hobby, namely that it provides a place where you are FREE FROM criticism. I will also dispute the validity of your assumption that audiophiles who are avidly interested in equipment cannot also be avidly interested in music. That is false. I am interested in music and I am interested in equipment, both audio equipment and technology more generally. I suspect there are a great number of people on this site for whom that is true. Interest in music and interest in technology are not mutually exclusive. They are different activities. They are different experiences. They employ different regions of the brain. The enjoyment of one says nothing about the enjoyment of the other. Its also worth pointing out that our fascination with BOTH music and technology is ancient and transcultural. They both have their origins in human prehistory. They both exist in some form in every culture on earth. By the prevailing standards of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology, music and technology are both elements of WHAT IT MEANS to be human. I would guess that at some level you already know all this, in light of the fact that you are a self-described music lover, yet you yourself have initiated a large number of threads here on Agon relating to sound quality and equipment design... The absolute best and worst-sounding CD you own? Will a transformer, 220 to 100v, ruin the sound? Are tone controls worth a second look ? Preamps/amps that look great and''feel' great? Single speaker wire on bi-posts with jumpers...? Your ''best kept secret'' speaker choice ? Most improved last 10yrs: Speaker, amp, or pre? Anyone went back to using bare wires on speakers? Amazing ''Overachieving'' products...your pick? Record weights 'n clamps: Audible improvements? Your best ''outstanding'' products in last 5 yrs? Amplifiers: A Keeper for Life. Do you know of one? Evidently, you have an interest in equipment. If you also have an interest in music, then you are your own existence proof that the two can peacefully coexist. Bryon |
Thank you, SonicBeauty, for your last post. It clarifies your views without being polemical, which is difficult to do when being challenged. It is a sign of a real gentleman. Your post also reveals that we're not in such disagreement after all. The observation that audiophiles sometimes lose the opportunity to enjoy music by obsessing about equipment is accurate, IME. I would include myself in that generalization. Let's consider the hatchet buried. :-) Bryon |
Today I had another encounter with Magic. I installed a maestro outlet for my dedicated line. It replaced another outlet from a highly regarded (as these things go) manufacturer. I tried the new outlet out of curiosity. And by 'curiosity' I mean pathology. Anyway, I put in the new outlet, flipped the breaker back on, sat down, and pressed play... Before I continue, let me say that I have no professional or personal connection to the folks who make the maestro outlet. And for those of you who haven't read this thread, let me also say that I generally regard myself as a Skeptic and not a Believer. Returning to the point... I sat down, pressed play, and -SHAZAM- things were different. And by 'different' I mean better. I hesitate to go into details about exactly how things were better, lest I be accused of questionable hearing or questionable sanity. Suffice to say I was pleased. And surprised. That's two encounters with Magic in as many months. FWIW. Bryon |
Hi Metralla - I didn't mention the other outlet because I didn't want folks to interpret my post as "X is better than Y." With that caveat, the other outlet was Synergistic Research's Teslaplex. I also own PS Audio's Power Port and Shunyata's SR-Z1. The PS Audio outlet is currently being used for my computer. The Shunyata outlet lives in the Drawer of Forgotten Toys. It hadn't occurred to me that the Maestro is my FOURTH fancy outlet. That is just silly. Anyway, with the previous 3 outlets, I heard no difference whatsoever. Zero. Still, I kept the PS Audio outlet and the Synergistic outlet because I like the death grip they have on my power cords. Interestingly, the Shunyata outlet does not have a death grip, which is why it was banished to the Drawer. Why I heard no improvement with the other outlets and a considerable improvement with the Maestro is a mystery that, in all probability, will never be solved. Hence its status as Magic is unlikely to change. BTW, I don't believe that these kinds of experiences can be reliably generalized. In someone else's system, one of the other outlets may have been preferable to the Maestro. This is the realm of the occult, where what few "experts" do exist rely on theories, methods, and explanations that are prescientific, to put it politely. Hi Sabai - Thanks for your acknowledgement that Magic exists. I haven't experimented with putting ERS cloth around power cords. I should give it a try. I have found that ERS's effects are nearly impossible to predict. I put it most places and I hear nothing but the sound of placebo. In a few applications, I could say with some confidence that it helped things. In other applications, it seemed to hurt things. I have looked at the Bybee products with some interest. About the Quantum Purifiers, the Bybee website says... Bybee Quantum Purifiers operate on the quantum mechanical level to regulate the flow of electrons that make up the signal (picture a metering light regulating freeway traffic flow). Current flow within the Quantum Purifier is unimpeded and ideal (think of the unencumbered flow of traffic on a lightly traveled expressway). During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors. Unwanted quantum noise energy dissipates as heat within the Quantum Purifier rather than emerging as a layer of contamination residue over the audio/video information. I wish the folks at Bybee would just say, "These work. We don't know why." Perhaps an ineffective marketing strategy, but more honest. Having said that, I don't know why I haven't tried Bybee products yet. They seem like exactly the kind of thing I don't believe in and then buy. :-) Bryon |
03-09-12: Sabai I agree. There is the world and there are representations of it. Among those representations are scientific explanations. Among scientific explanations are explanations relevant to audiophiles. Perhaps, Geoff, you also agree with Sabai. It's difficult to tell from this comment... If we accept the premise that most devices and tweaks operate in physical reality, I.e., they affect physical, electrical properties that directly or indirectly result in a better audio signal presented to the ears, then there must be a real, physical or electrical explanation for why you hear a change in the sound when evaluating a device or tweak. My comments about the limits of human knowledge weren't intended to imply that the limits are immutable. There may very well be immutable limits to human knowledge, but that isn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the PRESENT limits to human knowledge - the boundary between what is known and what is guessed. That boundary changes on a daily basis. Moving on... In your OP, your attribution of Magic to the ERS paper might have been a bit premature, since the explanation provided by the manufacturer is EMI/RFI absorption, and experiences of many users including other manufacturers seems to bear this explanation out. So one can reasonably conclude that ERS paper is actually not a Magical device in the sense you were using the word. I am of course aware of the "explanation" offered on the Stillpoints website. But like many explanations for these kinds of things, it leaves a lot to be desired. Even if we were to agree that EMI/RFI diffusion/reflection/absorption is an adequate explanation for the PHYSICAL effects of ERS cloth, the question remains, how does EMI/RFI diffusion/reflection/absorption explain the AUDIBLE effects? About that question, Stillpoints is silent. Al provided a good conjecture, IMO, about how addressing EMI/RFI might result in the audible effects reported by ERS users, including myself. He speculated that the minimization of RFI results in lower jitter. That may not be an exhaustive explanation, but it's a far cry better than the explanation offered by Stillpoints, because it provides a possible MECHANISM for the audible effects of ERS. Which brings me to... In contrast to Magic, valid scientific explanations provide mechanisms. And causes. And laws. And predictions. And theories. And evidence. A scientific explanation isn't valid because it's intuitive, or plausible, or satisfying. In the absence of mechanisms, causes, laws, etc., an explanation isn't worth much, other than the gratification some people derive from it. It's gratifying to believe that we know something, and humbling to acknowledge that we don't. That fundamental human shortcoming makes us overlook explanations that are, upon scrutiny, simply inadequate. It makes us vulnerable to deception, misinformation, and pseudo-explanation. Bryon |
03-05-12: Geoffkait I'm surprised to hear you say this, Geoff, as the word 'quantum' occurs in several places on your website Machina Dynamica. For example, about your Teleportation Tweak, you say this... The Teleportation Tweak is a phenomenal new product discovered and developed by Machina Dynamica for improving audio and video systems remotely over long distances. The fundamental principles of operation of The Teleportation Tweak are QUANTUM teleportation and mind-matter interaction. The details of how The Teleportation Tweak works are the proprietary property of Machina Dynamica. I find it puzzling that you are unwilling to extend the benefit of the doubt to another manufacturer when you have repeatedly asked the audiophile community to extend the benefit of the doubt to you and to the products of Machina Dynamica. Bryon |
See the difference? Yes, Geoff, I do see the difference. I misunderstood what you were attempting to express. My misunderstanding isn't for want of reading comprehension, I assure you. This unfortunate tangent began when, in response to my comment that it would be more honest for the folks at Bybee to say, "These work. We don't know why," you wrote only the following... You think that's more honest? Interesting. That comment was cryptic, and I told you as much. Your "clarification" was... the word Quantum automatically provokes a response, as if Quantum Mechanics is used deliberately by manufacturers to cover up a more mundane, conventional explanation, to protect their invention. Maybe the Bybee device is only a resister. Lol This comment does not reduce the ambiguity of your first remark. It intensifies it. It could be taken to mean... Some manufacturers use the term 'quantum' as a deceptive tactic to conceal the bogus nature of their products and sell them to gullible audiophiles. Bybee's Quantum Purifier is an example of that kind of bogus product. It could also be taken to mean... Some audiophiles INTERPRET the use of the term 'quantum' as a manufacturer's deceptive tactic to conceal the bogus nature of their products and sell them to gullible audiophiles. Bybee's Quantum Purifier is an example of that kind of unfairly judged product. I take it from your last post that you intended the latter and not the former. In any event, I would invite you to consider that your meaning is not as self-evident as you seem to believe. Bryon |
Thank you, Geoff, for your substantive response. As it turns out, I don't have an opinion about whether there are manufacturers of audiophile products who deliberately deceive their potential customers with explanations they know to be false. I certainly believe there are people who WOULD do this, but I have no idea if there are people who ARE doing it. As you can surmise from the fact that I initiated this thread, I find the subject of Magic fascinating. By 'Magic' I mean: any effect not explainable by known physical laws. Some audiophiles believe that any effect not explainable by known physical laws is nothing more than placebo. I do not believe that. I believe that the universe is much cleverer than we are, so you don't have to go very far to encounter the limit of knowledge and understanding. On the other side of that limit is Magic. I'm not talking about effects that are somehow non-physical or metaphysical. I'm talking about effects that are beyond the limits of currently available explanations. I would imagine that, as the designer and manufacturer of Machina Dynamica products, you know very well the limits I'm describing. Bryon |
03-08-12: Geoffkait I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to? Is your comment supposed to mean... It is presumptuous of you, Bryon, to imply that you know all about science, or all about physics. If so, I implied nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary. Or does the "we" simply mean "people"? And hence your comment means... People do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To presume otherwise is wrong. If so, that was MY point. And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know? Again, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you saying... Even though YOU don't know a scientific explanation for a "Magical device," someone else might. For example, someone at Harvard, NASA, etc. Or... Even the people at Harvard, NASA, etc. might not know the scientific explanation for a "Magical device." It would help if you would set aside rhetorical questions and cryptic remarks and simply state, in a declarative sentence, what you are attempting to express. Bryon |
03-10-12: Sabai I agree. IMO, there may be some phenomena that permanently defy explanation. Having said that, I am generally an optimist about the future of human knowledge. The reason: Science. 03-09-12: Ether I understand your feeling that this conversation has taken an unfortunate turn into futility. I, for one, cannot even pinpoint any of Geoff's beliefs on this topic. I don't think he is particularly interested in making himself understood. In any event, the whole point of the thread was to share experiences with tweaks whose effects are difficult to explain. So getting back to that... 03-10-12: Tbg I agree with you, Tbg, that ERS can have a deleterious effect. I liked it in one place: my preamp/dac. I tried ERS in half a dozen other places, and either I heard nothing or didn't like what I heard. I wound up taping the remaining sheets to the inside of the breaker box. But I'm not sure that has any effect. Maybe, like you, I should try it in the car. Was the car in or out of the garage? :-) Bryon |
03-10-12: Sabai There is certainly some truth to this. The history of science is littered with false theories... spontaneous generation, luminiferous ether, phlogiston, vitalism, the caloric theory of heat, Larmarckism, etc. etc. Having said that, scientific inquiry has also brought us out of the age of bodily humours, celestial spheres, witchcraft, totemism, demonic possession, miasma, phrenology, and innumerable other examples of Magic. And unlike audiophile Magic, those other kinds of Magic had real consequences for real people. As flawed as scientific inquiry is, it is the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence. Because of that feature, false scientific theories are eventually detected and replaced with better ones. Those "better" theories are themselves often replaced (e.g., Aristotle -> Newton -> Einstein -> Heisenberg -> ?), but that does not mean we must abandon the idea of scientific truth. It means we must abandon the idea of scientific CERTAINTY. And that is a small price to pay for the profound advancements to human knowledge and social justice that science has made possible. IMO. Bryon |
Geoff, trying to have a conversation with you reminds me of something Wittgenstein said... Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle." No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box... bc |
Thank you, Geoff, for demonstrating my point. I was using the Beetle in the Box as a repurposed analogy. I am very well aware of its original meaning -- as an argument against Internalist theories of meaning, what Wittgenstein called "private language." I wrote about this subject extensively in the course of my PhD. Because my analogy was unclear to you, I will say the same thing plainly... You are an obscurantist. Like all obscurantists, you have no intention of making yourself understood. Here is an example, taken from your website Machina Dynamica, about your product the Clever Little Clock: The time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made are out of synch with the time signals when the recording is played. Those Past Time signals are reproduced through the speakers along with the acoustic information and become entangled, integrated with Present Time signals the listener uses to time-sequence sounds and images in memory. The alien time signals from the past are perceived subconsciously by the listener as a threat, producing fear, anxiety and confusion: the fight-or-flight response inherited from his Prehistoric ancestors. That fear, anxiety and confusion reduce or distort the listener's hearing and visual acuity. The Clever Little Clock counteracts the perceived threat produced by the Past Time signals, improving the listener's hearing and vision acuity by disentangling, dis-integrating the Past Time signals from the Present Time signals in his subconscious mind. This passage, and many more like it written by you, is an act of obscurantism. I suspect that not a single person other than you understands its meaning. It is possible that even you do not understand its meaning, because it has none. As for the Beetle in the Box... The box is empty. Bryon |
03-12-12: Geoffkait I will give you credit for one thing, Geoff. That was funny. But that's where my praise stops. Throughout this thread, your responses all have the same quality of being NON-responses. They are a series of ambiguous remarks, elliptical arguments, rhetorical questions, non sequiturs, inside jokes, and so on. Talking with you is an Alice in Wonderland experience. That's not a compliment. And that is why I say you are an obscurantist. As to whether you are also a huckster, as Audiofeil suggested, I don't have an opinion. A huckster deceives and is aware of his deception. I honestly don't know if that describes you. You may be a huckster, or you may be a True Believer. If you are a huckster, then this whole conversation has been Theater in service of promoting Machina Dynamica, and the joke is on me. If you are a True Believer, then your obscurantism isn't an act of deception but an act of... I don't know how to complete that sentence. If you genuinely believe in the products you sell, why are you an obscurantist? There are a number of other manufacturers who contribute to Audiogon who are patently NOT obscurantists... Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere Bobby Palkovic of Merlin Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio Duke LeJeune of AudioKinesis These manufacturers offer open and accessible information on a range of subjects within their expertise. When asked direct questions about the products they design, they do not hide behind the facile excuse that "You need a PhD in electrical engineering to understand my design." And for that matter, there are a number of regular Audiogon contributors who DO have PhD's in electrical engineering, and so far as I am aware, you do not provide THEM with substantive information about the products you design either. That leaves me wondering, in the words of another philosopher... Do you muddy the water, to make it seem deep? Bryon |
03-13-12: Geoffkait Seems like I touched a nerve. This is a bizarre response to my last post, which was neither a diatribe nor an attack. It was a request to explain why it is you fail to provide substantive information about the products you design and sell, unlike several other well regarded manufacturers who contribute to A'gon. You may experience that as an attack. I would call it a confrontation. If you were to take a look at my posting history, you would see that I am not in the business of attacking other posters. And I seldom have this kind of direct confrontation, as I find the whole thing unpleasant. Audiofeil has already cornered the market on confrontation, anyway. He and I make unlikely allies, but the enemy of my enemy... It's also worth pointing out, for those who've just tuned in to watch the final seconds of this train wreck, that I am not a dyed in the wool skeptic, as you suggest. The whole point of this thread, which I initiated, was to share experiences with tweaks that are difficult to explain but nevertheless EFFECTIVE. Does that sound like a dyed in the wool skeptic? On the contrary. And btw, it's "dyed in the wool," not "died in the wool." That's something they still teach in graduate school, since you were wondering. Which brings me back to... The nerve I touched. I suspect you're feeling cornered by my request to explain why it is you fail to provide substantive information about the products you design and sell, IF you genuinely believe in them. You apparently will not go anywhere near the vicinity of that question. That is revealing. All in all, I would say that this absurd detour in what was otherwise a perfectly pleasant thread has run its course. My own personal opinion is that your behavior reflects very poorly on you and on Machina Dynamica. Perhaps you're starting to sense that, which is why, in your last post, you come out swinging. But you brought this on yourself, Geoff. Oh, and... "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy." Yawn. Bryon (not Byron) |
03-14-12: Geoffkait Your suggestion to do some due diligence sounded like a good idea. So I did just that. About your product the "Super Intelligent Chip," you say... Machina Dynamica's latest product is The Super intelligent Chip - the third and latest version of the Intelligent Chip, a small adhesive-backed silver disc that is attached to the surface of the lower portion of the CD tray used for Mini Discs. This placement allows the Super Intelligent Chip to be inserted inside the player along with the CD to be treated. The CD to be treated is allowed to play for about 1-2 seconds. The CD will then be permanently upgraded and will sound much more open, detailed and dynamic, with no distortion - better than a remastered version! Here is your explanation of how it works... In the case of the original Intelligent Chip, CD laser light escapes the player through a number of small holes and narrow gaps in the CD player case. The emitted photons from chip commingle with the CD laser light that is everywhere in the room and inside the player; the commingled light resonates with the CD's polycarbonate material, improving its optical performance. In the case of The Super Intelligent Chip, the process occurs entirely inside the CD player where all the interactions are more intense. I would invite you to consider that explaining how a product works in terms of "commingled photon resonance" isn't an explanation to 99% of your potential customers, even the physicists among them. Using terms like 'photon' seems to suggest that you intend your explanation to fall within the purview of scientifically valid explanations. I happen to know something about scientific explanations, having spent years researching and publishing on intertheoretic relations and reductionism in science. Generally I'm not a fan of exchanging résumés, but I would like to head off the charge that I'm simply making up the following... Nearly all scientifically valid explanations are nomological, mechanistic, or teleological. That is to say, they explain events or entities in terms of underlying LAWS, MICROSTRUCTURE, or FUNCTIONS, respectively. Physics is the paradigmatic example of nomological explanation. Chemistry is the paradigmatic example of mechanistic explanation. Biology is the paradigmatic example of teleological explanation. Where does your explanation in terms of "commingled photon resonance" fit in? If the answer is that it is a nomological explanation, then what are the underlying LAWS responsible for the effect of the Super Intelligent Chip? If you do not have an answer to that question, then your "explanation" is not an explanation, or at least not a scientifically valid explanation, as your terminology invites the potential customer to believe. About your product "Codename Blue Meanies," you say... Machina Dynamica's latest product, Codename Blue Meanies, is a set of 4 adhesive-backed 3/4" blue dots that are attached to the walls of the listening room, one dot per wall... Here's your explanation of how they work... Codename Blue Meanies operates via mind matter-interaction. The subconscious mind interacts with room boundaries, i.e., closed-in spaces, producing a claustrophobic reaction that interferes with and degrades the listener's sensory perception. Several of your explanations involve "mind/matter interaction," as you call it. "Mind/matter interaction" is the purview of the Cognitive Sciences, which happens to be my other area of interest. I spent years researching and publishing on the neural correlates of conscious experience. I cannot think of a single scientific theory, experiment, or conjecture that substantiates the "degradation of sense perception" attributable to a "claustrophobic reaction" caused by the "subconscious interaction of the mind with room boundaries." Perhaps you could direct me to a article. About your product "Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak," you say... Machina Dynamica's latest product, Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak, reduces distortion, reveals more ambient information, increases palpability and air and improves overall realism. The Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak entails the placement of 4 small plastic containers filled with ordinary water in strategic locations... And here is your explanation... "...................................." You don't give one. About your "Tru-Tone Duplex Covers"... Machina Dynamica's Tru-Tone Duplex Covers are special audiophile-grade covers for all duplex wall outlets; they are intended to replace all types of duplex covers - steel, plastic, wood, etc. - in the listening room -- including non-audio outlets and unused outlets. While one or two Tru-Tone Covers can make a significant improvement to the sound, 3-4 Duplex Covers in the room can yield tremendous results. Tru-Tone Duplex Covers produce a remarkable degree of focus, fullness, detail and presence. Again, no explanation. About your "Quantum Temple Bell"... The Quantum Temple Bell is an extensively treated Feng Shui Tibetan hand bell that improves audio and video quality when it is rung in "strategic locations" around the room; these strategic locations are identified in our instructions for the bell. The bell operates by mind-matter interaction as opposed to affecting acoustic waves in the room. The bell ringing procedure takes about 2 minutes. Further improvements can be obtained by repeating the procedure in all rooms of the house. No explanation, other than the vague and cryptic "mind-matter interaction." About your "Teleportation Tweak"... The Teleportation Tweak is independent of distance and will work anywhere in the world you happen to be located. We have performed The Teleportation Tweak many times for distances between 1000 and 4000 miles, even for distances greater than 10,000 miles. The Teleportation Tweak works equally well using your landline phone or cell phone. This one not only doesn't have an explanation, it doesn't have a DESCRIPTION. About this, you say... The operational details of the Teleportation Tweak are the proprietary property of Machina Dynamica. Proprietary property? No wonder you don't explain it. You see where this is going. If you don't, everyone else does. I hope that clears up the confusion you expressed. Bryon |
I think it would be useful to recall how we got here. I started this thread to discuss tweaks that are effective but difficult to explain. I ironically called it Magic. With a few exceptions, people seemed to get it. My choice of ERS as an example of Magic was simply because I had just installed it, and I was puzzled with the result. I expressed that puzzlement and with the help of Al and a few others, we began to speculate about what might be behind the Magic of ERS. Things were proceeding in a very collegial way. Then you came along, Geoff, with comments that were simultaneously provocative and obscure. I pointed out the inscrutability of your comments at least three times 03-05-12: Bryoncunningham You ignored these repeated requests to speak plainly. Finally I gave up and I said you were an obscurantist. I wasn't the only person who felt that way... 03-13-12: Sabai As an illustration of your obscurantism, I quoted material from the Machina Dynamica website. I asked you why you do not offer open and accessible explanations of the products you sell, and again you completely ignored the question. Instead you did some misdirection by characterizing me as a dyed in the wool skeptic, as though my comments about your obscurantism were motivated by ideological skepticism, which they are most certainly not. Youve repeatedly accused me of strawman-ing you, but your characterization of me as a close-minded skeptic is a transparent case of strawman-ing. Heres what other folks said on that subject 01-22-12: Almarg Enough said. The upshot of all this is that I dont care one whit about Machina Dynamica. It became the focus of this thread only because it demonstrates your tendency toward obscurantism. As to whether you are a huckster, a fraud, or a misunderstood genius, I have an opinion, but that isnt the point. Or at least it isnt MY point. My point is that, if you would like to have a constructive conversation with fellow audiophiles, you should take a hard look at the way you engage them. Bryon |
03-15-12: Cbw723 I agree with this. Virtually any human activity is subject to corruption. The fact that SOME scientific research has been found to be corrupt does not invalidate science as an enterprise. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I also agree with Cbw that science should be understood not merely as a collection of theories, methods, data, and experiments, but as a PROCESS. Among other things, the process of science is... 1. Evidence based 2. Public 3. Self correcting RE: 1. That science is based on evidence is obvious. What is somewhat less obvious is that what COUNTS as evidence is largely determined by the scientific paradigms that guide the acquisition and analysis of data. That is relevant to this thread, since there seems to be some disagreement about what should count as "evidence." RE: 2. Calling science 'public' is another way of saying what Cbw said about the reproducibility of results. If there is one standard common to all scientific evidence, it is that evidence must be public. Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor was a repudiation of what he called "private language," but it could be repurposed as a repudiation of "private evidence." Unlike some other human activities, science makes NO room for private evidence. That also seems relevant to this thread, insofar as some of the "evidence" we have seen has been private, either metaphorically or literally. RE: 3. Science is self correcting. This may be the most unique feature of science. Scientists spend a good fraction of their time trying to DISPROVE the theories of other scientists. This is crucial to the progress of science, because it means that, eventually, false theories will be detected and corrected. Even though there is no way to be certain that a particular scientific theory is true, there are many ways to know that a scientific theory is FALSE. And that alone is sufficient to ensure scientific progress. Taken together, these three characteristics are unique to science. There are certainly other activities that are evidence based (e.g., legal trials), other activities that are public in the sense of contingent upon reproducibility (e.g., mathematical proofs), and other activities that are self correcting (e.g., architecture, in the sense of... if it falls down, don't build it that way again). But so far as I am aware, science is the only widespread human activity that is evidence based AND public AND self correcting. And that brings me back to Magic. By definition, Magic is not evidence based. Nor is Magic is public, since Magical effects often fail the test of reproducibility. And the market of Magical products is not self correcting -- notoriously so. Magic is about as far from science as you can get. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. Magic pops up from time to time, whether you want it to or not. When Magical effects get explained, they cease to be Magic. When they don't, you get threads like this one. Bryon |
03-16-12: Csmgolf Thank you for that, Csmgolf. Geoff's "recollection" of events is distorted. Maybe he can invent a Machina Dynamica device to reduce that kind of distortion... "Codename Reality" ? 03-16-12: Geoffkait Those are not my own words, Geoff. When I used the word 'confrontation,' here is what I said... 03-14-12: Bryoncunningham That is a far cry from calling myself "confrontational," which of course would imply that the problem lies within me. And I confronted you only AFTER you ignored my repeated attempts to engage you in a substantive conversation. Your attempt to invert the sequence of events, turning the effect into the cause, will not persuade anyone, since if you haven't noticed, the whole thing is written down. You used veiled insults and innuendo, and continue to do so. I would not call my insults veiled, but I'm happy you see them that way. Again, I would invite you to examine my posting history. You will see that I don't make a habit of insulting people. On the contrary, I make an effort to treat people with respect. As a result, I have had MANY perfectly courteous conversations with other A'gon members, including those with whom I disagree. I fully acknowledge that I have not treated you with respect. If we assume for the moment that my characterization of myself is accurate, and I do generally treat people with respect, then why haven't I treated you that way? Because, Geoff, in this thread, YOU did not treat other people with respect. Again, your comments were both provocative and obscure. That happens to be a combination that irritates me, having spent years in the company of "literary intellectuals," many of whom fit that description. IME, the intellectuals who relied on provocative obscurity were invariably concealing intense insecurity about their own ideas with their cryptic conversational style, in the hope that colleagues would confuse the Obscure for the Profound. For years I thought you could win over such people with calm, rational, open discourse. That is sometimes true. But when repeated efforts to reasonably engage a person are met with more provocative obscurity, you are left with two choices: ignore them or confront them. I sometimes choose the one, sometimes the other. Obviously I chose to confront you, and now I'm afraid your obscurantism and other foibles have been dragged into the light of day. Don't be disheartened, though... There will always be those who confuse the Obscure with the Profound, and that ensures a steady stream of customers. It's also worth noting that my irritation with obscurantism isn't merely academic. Obscurantism may be harmless in the audio world, but it isn't harmless in the real world. In the real world, obscurantism thrives in the form of political propaganda and economic deception. If you need an illustration of this, look no further than the recent financial crisis. The world was brought to the brink of economic oblivion by the actions of people armed with Multifactor Derivatives, Collateralized Debt Obligations, Credit Default Swaps, and a host of other financial instruments designed with one thing in mind: Obscurantism. Obscurantism is used to control what people think, or more to the point, what people DON'T think. That was Orwell's great insight in 1984, that obscurantism makes certain ways of thinking impossible, and that effect can be used to any end whatsoever. As he predicted, in industrialized nations of instant communication, obscurantism is a weapon. It may be THE weapon. Returning to the world of audio... What was that term you used, close minded?.....hmmmmm. Does it not strike you as strange that you are the only person on this thread who has said this, and that at least 4 other posters have said the EXACT OPPOSITE? You are sadly out of touch with the people around you, Geoff. Time to start designing "Codename Reality" Bryon |
03-16-12: Sabai I don't disagree that SOME scientific research fits this description. But your characterization gives the impression that you believe that a LARGE FRACTION of scientific research is, to use your word, fraudulent. If that is what you believe, then I would say that you have probably been exposed to a MISrepresentative sample of scientific research. Consider the following discoveries, each paradigmatic examples of scientific research... The Periodic Table Newtonian mechanics Copernican Heliocentrism The Germ Theory of disease Electromagnetism Evolution of Species by Natural Selection Atomic Theory Radioactivity Special Relativity General Relativity Plate tectonics DNA Thermodynamics Radio waves X rays Quantum Mechanics Penicillin Anesthesia ...and on and on it goes. For each of these historic discoveries, there is a veritable mountain of subsequent scientific research. Tens of thousands of scientists working on every continent over centuries. Can you possibly believe that a large fraction of these researchers are conducting fraudulent research? If science is that fraudulent, how did it eradicate Polio? How did it put a man on the moon? How did it put cell phones in the hands of 87% of the world's population? For whatever you think they're worth, those kinds of achievements would be all but impossible if the scientific research upon which those technologies are based were in fact fraudulent. I suspect that you've had some bad experiences with folks who you identify as scientists, and that has colored your perception of science more generally. If those experiences were with physicians, as your examples seem to suggest, then I would say this: A physician is rarely a scientist, either in temperament or in training. Judging the whole of science on the basis of some abusive medical practices is like judging the whole of world literature on the basis of comic books. Bryon |
03-17-12: Sabai I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind with POLITICALLY motivated SCIENTIFIC research, but I certainly agree with you about ECONOMICALLY motivated MEDICAL research. Plenty of examples of that. Like you, the corruption of medical research for profit drives me crazy. From what I can tell, most of the questionable medical research is drug trial research conducted by physicians on behalf of drug companies. Unfortunately, medicine has become an entrepreneurial activity in this country, not just for drug companies, but for physicians. It is a truism that, where there is profit, there is corruption. The solution to that problem should be obvious. Having said that, it bears repeating that physicians are NOT scientists, either in temperament or training or motivation. RE: Temperament... The scientists I've known have been uniformly analytical, imaginative, and curious. The physicians have been largely impressionistic, concrete, and rigid. There are of course exceptions. RE: Training... Scientists are taught how to systematically identify, evaluate, collect, record, analyze, and interpret evidence. While IDEALLY physicians would be taught the same thing, that is rarely the case, IME. Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence. I can't tell you how many times I've been misdiagnosed for this reason. The problem is traceable to their training in medical school, which is NOT the training of a scientist. Again, there are exceptions, which is why, when you find a good doctor, you hold on for dear life. RE: Motivation... Of the dozen or so scientists I've known personally over the years, I don't know a single one who went into their field for the money. Given what most of them are paid, that would be laughable. In contrast, it is easy to form the impression that a significant fraction of medical doctors are motivated not by compassion or curiosity but by money. And again, where there is profit, there is corruption. For these reasons, I think that conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake that leads to false generalizations. Returning to audio... 03-17-12: Sabai It seems to me that Kaplan is making a case for the value of OBSERVATION. That is perfectly reasonable, IMO. Careful observation is an important element in many activities where the goal is expanding the scope of knowledge. Maybe this is what you meant earlier when you said that the "the empirical method and the scientific method are not the same at all." If what you mean by "the empirical method" is a method of careful observation, then I would say that the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." So you would be right to say that they are not identical, but your way of phrasing it -- that they are "not the same at all" -- was perhaps a bit misleading. In any case, we may not be in such disagreement after all. Which would be nice. This thread could use some more agreement. :-) Bryon |
03-17-12: Geoffkait I can say with supreme confidence that Als use of the phrase finite bounds of plausibility does not reflect an attitude that harkens back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm. You are strawmanning, again, Geoff, and now at preposterous levels. And targeting Al, who is widely regarded as the Exemplar of Audiogon contributors, is strategic suicide. You just multiplied your opponents by 10. 03-17-12: Tbg 03-17-12: Almarg I respectfully disagree with you, Tbg, that we all need to agree on where to locate the line between what is plausible and implausible. That is partly because, as Al points out, the line is subjective, debatable, and imprecise. Having said that, the line is not ALTOGETHER subjective, debatable, and imprecise. In other words, there are quite reliable methods for assessing the *prima facie* plausibility of a theory or explanation. Here are some of the considerations 1. Conformity to a recognized Model of Explanation. By this I mean essentially what I wrote in my post on 3/15: Nearly all scientifically valid explanations are nomological, mechanistic, or teleological. That is to say, they explain events or entities in terms of underlying LAWS, MICROSTRUCTURE, or FUNCTIONS, respectively. Physics is the paradigmatic example of nomological explanation. Chemistry is the paradigmatic example of mechanistic explanation. Biology is the paradigmatic example of teleological explanation. Explanations that are presented as scientific, but are neither nomological nor mechanistic nor teleological, are prima facie implausible. Even REVOLUTIONARY theories like General Relativity conform to a recognized Model of Explanation. Geoffs explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not. 2. A CAUSAL relationship between the explanation and the phenomenon to be explained. Prima facie plausible explanations provide a causal relationship between the thing to be explained (the explanandum) and the thing that does the explaining (the explanans). Geoffs explanations do not. 3. A large Circle of Justification between the theory and data. To some extent, there is always a circular relationship between theory and data, in that the theory provides reason to believe the data and the data provides reason to believe the theory. What distinguishes good explanations from bad ones is that good explanations have LARGE Circles of Justification. That is to say, they involve LOTS of data and LOTS of theory. As the data and the theory become sparser and sparser, and the Circle of Justification becomes smaller and smaller, the explanations that employ that data/theory become more and more questionable. The worst kind of explanation is one in which the ONLY reason to believe the data is provided by the theory, and the ONLY reason to believe the theory is provided by the data. In that case, the explanation is simply AD HOC. For an example of an ad hoc explanation, see any of Geoff's explanations. 4. Entailed predictions. Prima facie plausible explanations entail predictions. This is true even of REVOLUTIONARY explanations. For example, when Einstein created/discovered General Relativity, one of the predictions it entailed was Gravitational Lensing, i.e., the bending of light around supermassive objects like stars, so that you can see whats behind them. That prediction was famously confirmed when Gravitational Lensing was discovered to be real, lending tremendous credibility to General Relativity. So far as I can tell, Geoffs explanations entail no predictions whatsoever. 5. Parsimony. Everybody knows this one. Suffice to say, it doesnt look like this. 6. Independent Corroboration. So far as I am aware, NONE of Geoffs explanations have been independently corroborated. As discussed by Cbw and me in earlier posts, the standard of REPRODUCIBILITY is the one thing ALL scientifically valid explanations have in common. ____________________________ None of these considerations are definitive determinants of an explanations validity or truthfulness, but taken together, they provide a VERY reliable guide to assessing an explanations prima facie plausibility. And equally important, none of these considerations eliminates the possibility of REVOLUTIONARY explanations. I suspect that most or all of the above considerations underlie Als assessments of prima facie plausibility. Perhaps common sense isnt the right term. Maybe its more like informed sense. That is something even more valuable. Bryon |
03-18-12: Geoffkait As usual, Geoff, you are wrong. Einstein published his field equations for General Relativity in 1915. Among the predictions of General Relativity was that light would bend around objects of sufficient mass. In May of 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington, a British astrophysicist, took pictures of a solar eclipse from the island of Principe, where he observed that light from distant stars was in fact bent around the Sun. You can see one of Eddingtons pictures here. The next year, Eddington published a paper entitled: A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919 This paper was received as a resounding confirmation of General Relativity. Note the use of the word Sun. Bryon |
03-20-12: Nonoise Since Eddington's initial discovery, the study of light deflection - what is now called Gravitational Lensing - has led to some remarkable discoveries, such as Einstein Rings, which you can see a picture of here. Gravitational Lensing techniques are also used in a variety of other astronomical research, including the detection of extrasolar planets. Science is amazing. Bryon |
03-20-12: Geoffkait You are quite correct, a person need look no further than Wikipedia Gravitational microlensing is an astronomical phenomenon due to the gravitational lens effect That is from Wikis article on microlensing, a form of Gravitational Lensing in which the lens can be as small as a single star, or even a planet. So next time, Geoff, I suggest you take your own advice and actually READ the Wiki article. But all of this is a ridiculously irrelevant tangent. The subject of Gravitational Lensing only came up in the context of discussing the features of good explanations, one of which is that they entail predictions. The bending of light around objects of sufficient mass, which is now referred to by the general term Gravitational Lensing, was simply an illustration of a prediction entailed by a good explanation (General Relativity). The details of Gravitational Lensing are utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is this... Of the common features of good explanations conforming to a recognized Model of Explanation, a causal connection between explanandum and explanans, a large Circle of Justification, entailed predictions, parsimony, independent corroboration your explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not have a SINGLE one. But I suspect you know the point I was making, and rather than struggle to respond to it, you try to misdirect the conversation with a triviality and irrelevance. That is another act of Obscurantism. Thank you, Geoff, for continuing to make my point. A short while ago you said... If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm? I find that comment ironic, in light of your ceaseless Obscurantism. In the Dark Ages, the powerful withheld knowledge and higher learning from the powerless largely through the use of Obscurantism. The only person harkening back to the Dark Ages is you. Bryon |
Returning to the original topic of this thread
After extensive experimentation with ERS cloth, Ive come to the conclusion that, in my system, it is harmful more than helpful. Some folks predicted I would say that. You were right. In virtually all applications I tried, ERS had the effect of making things sound strangely muffled. Many people report high frequency roll off and reduced air. To my ears, it isnt a simple roll off, like you get with treble control. Its something more unusual and difficult to describe. But the end result is less immediacy, and therefore less involvement. So now its all gone. As to why my first impression with ERS cloth in the preamp was (slightly) positive, I believe it was for the reason Al hypothesized, i.e. the reduction of jitter. But after installing the ERS, I went on a crusade to reduce EMI/RFI in the system, which you can read about here, if you're interested. Among other things, I added about 15 pounds (!) of copper/steel/TI shielding inside the preamp. Presumably whatever benefits the ERS cloth initially resulted in were altered or offset by the additional shielding. Or my ears changed. Or my brain. Regardless of the explanation, after my extensive countermeasures in the battle with EMI/RFI, the ERS cloth definitely made things sound worse. What is strange to me about the ERS cloth is that it seems to have a "muffling" effect when you place it on a variety of different equipment, e.g., preamp, power conditioner, circuit breaker. How in the world it could have the same effect on equipment as diverse as that is a mystery. I assume the answer is Magic. Bryon |
03-28-12: Geoffkait You are the second person on this thread to report that kind of bad juju. Hmm. My unused ERS is sitting on a shelf in the listening room. Maybe I should burn it. :-) 03-29-12: Douglas_schroeder I think there's some truth in that, Douglas. No doubt there are lots of examples of products that are initially impressive but leave something to be desired upon further listening. That may be a consequence of the initial impression being a placebo effect, or a consequence of the subsequent impressions being the result of long-term listening (which, IME, is a more reliable method of evaluating). In this case, I would speculate that what accounts for the difference between my initial impression of ERS and my later impressions of it may be everything that happened in between, namely, I... -Added about 15 pounds of internal shielding to the Meridian G68. -Built new reinforced enclosures for the reclocker and the Sonos. -Placed a heavy steel plate under the amp. -Replaced unshielded Cat5 cables with shielded Cat6 cables (my source is computer based). -Replaced Apple Airport with a simple shielded ethernet switch. -Replaced the romex for the dedicated line with VH Audios cryod romex. -Replaced the outlet for the dedicated line with a Maestro outlet. -Added about 50 ferrites all over the house, and some in the system. -Added RFI pigtails to the amp and the preamp. -Replaced the fuse in the amp with a Hifi Tuning fuse. -Added grounding pigtails to the negative terminals of the amp. It was only AFTER all that insanity that I reevaluated ERS and concluded that it was harmful to sound quality. FWIW. On a slightly different subject... It's worth pointing out that the last three items on my list -- the RFI pigtails, the Hifi Tuning fuses, and the grounding pigtails -- are most certainly some form of Magic. Actually, I don't know if any of them have any effect whatsoever, so maybe I should call them Black Magic. Bryon |
03-30-12: Mrtennis MrT - I don't know why you had to read 175 posts to come to this conclusion. It is the conclusion you ALWAYS come to, no matter what is being discussed. It goes like this... 1. Knowledge must be certain. 2. Perception cannot be certain. 3. Therefore, perception is not knowledge. This little syllogism, which encapsulates your Ideology of Skepticism, is presented by you so frequently here on A'gon that it is beginning to look like stereotypy. Anyone who spends time around here knows what I'm talking about. Bryon |
I had another experience with Magic yesterday. In fact, it was the most Magical audio experience I've ever had. I'm somewhat reluctant to mention it, because I don't want to sabotage my own credibility. But in light of the topic of this thread, I feel obliged to share it. Here it is... Grounding pigtails. For those of you who are unfamiliar, it's little loops of wire that you attach to the negative binding post of your speakers or your amp (or both). Audio Prism makes grounding pigtails out of Litz wire, and sells them for an unconscionable amount of money. I made a diy version using 12 strands of 23 gauge solid core wire that I braided together. About a week ago I attached my diy grounding pigtails to my amp. I thought maybe I heard something, but it was within the "noise level" of placebo, so I didn't think much of it. Yesterday, I made some more pigtails and attached them to my speakers and... SHAZAM! Something very unexpected occurred. I cannot explain it. I suspect no one can explain it. It was Magic. Unlike the ambiguous effect of adding pigtails to the amp, the effect of adding pigtails to the speakers was well above the typical "noise level" of placebo. I say that knowing full well the power of placebo. I have an avid interest in psychology, and I am married to a psychologist, making me aware of the tricks the unconscious mind can play on you. So of course I cannot guarantee that what I experienced wasn't a placebo. But I can say, with total sincerity, that I believe the effect occurred not in my mind, but in my listening room. I should also say, in my preemptive defense, that I have tried a LARGE number of other tweaks. You can see a list here. At least half the time with tweaks, I hear no difference whatsoever. But in this case, I heard something. Something remarkable. Sounds like nonsense. But it happened. Bryon |
Thanks Dave and Nonoise for your comments. I appreciate your open mindedness. Al - You are the Voice of Reason, and your comments reflect that. There are most certainly confounding variables, and you identified some of the big ones. It is completely possible that the effect was attributable to some other variable, or was merely in my mind. I have no particular investment in being correct about this. Having said that, the effect was startling. I have seldom had that kind of experience with the many tweaks I've tried over the years. And when I have experienced dramatic improvements from tweaks, there was usually a good explanation (e.g., add a reclocker and sound quality improves in ways associated with jitter, add felt to the speaker baffle and sound quality improves in ways associated with diffraction, etc.). Your suggestion to A/B the pigtails, in order to replicate the results, is of course what should be done. Unfortunately, I cannot A/B this in my current system, because the pigtails are attached to custom crossovers that I built for my speakers, and the crossovers are located inside a sealed cabinet in the wall between the equipment closet and the listening room. So there is no way to quickly A/B, let alone blind A/B. So I plan on doing the A/B'ing in a friend's system, which should be sufficiently resolving to either confirm or disconfirm what I experienced in my system. I will also ask him to help me blind A/B. I will report back with the results. Like Alice said... curiouser and curiouser. Bryon |
Geoff -- Yes, I would say that my friend's system is at least as resolving as mine is currently, and possibly more so. If I cannot discriminate the presence/absence of the grounding pigtails in his system, I will conclude that Al may have been right when he suggested that what I heard the day I put in the pigtails might be attributable to some other variable. From your use of "pray tell," I gather that you are going to say that I cannot conclude anything of the sort, because the pigtails may have some effect in my system but not in his, due to differences in equipment, ac power, acoustics, barometric pressure, solar flares, the state of my electrolytes, etc. etc. Maybe you were implying something else. It's hard to know when you don't finish your thoughts. bc |
Magic is the word Ive been using to refer to something with a known effect but an unknown explanation. I chose the word magic because, when you encounter something with a known effect but an unknown explanation, the experience can be similar to seeing magic tricks performed. I assume that is obvious from the discussion so far. But I also chose the word magic because it expresses a universal human tendency. Every child lives in a world of magical events. Every adult occasionally succumbs to Magical Thinking. And every culture has some form of magical beliefs. Both Ancient and Enlightenment philosophers believed that the hallmark of being human is to think rationally. From what I can tell, the hallmark of being human is to think magically. There are of course exceptions. What one person experiences as Magic, a more rational or informed person may experience as Mechanism. But no matter how rational or informed you are, the pace at which we as individuals acquire explanations is far outmatched by the pace of science and technology. So there will always be things with known effects but unknown explanations. Sure, everyone knows how to explain this. But only some people know how to explain this. And very few people know how to explain this. And no one knows how to explain this. In other words, Magic is here to stay. IMO. Bryon |
Update... I have not forgotten about my promise to A/B (and preferably, blind A/B) the grounding pigtails that I thought were effective. There was a little snag... As I mentioned, since my crossovers are sealed in a cabinet in the wall, I was going to A/B the grounding pigtails on a friend's system that I am familiar with. As fate would have it, his system is temporarily down, due to the fact that, during some crossover modding, he blew a tweeter half way across his room. And btw, the first dealer quoted him a $1300 replacement cost for the tweeter. The second dealer gave him a "great deal" at $800. That is just greedy, IMO. I don't know if it's the dealer or the manufacturer or both. I won't mention any names, but the tweeter is made in France from beryllium. It's Focal. Anyhoo, I will make good on my promise to A/B the grounding pigtails when his system is up and running again. For that purpose, I have purchased EVS Ground Enhancers, which are made from Litz wire, like Audio Prism's Ground Control. But the EVS version is 1/6 the price of Audio Prism's. So not everyone is greedy. In the meantime, I've been experimenting with other forms of Magic. At the moment, it's Hifi Tuning fuses, which do indeed seem to make an audible difference. I should probably blind A/B these when I blind A/B the Ground Enhancers, though that gives me two chances to look like a fool. Bryon |
04-17-12: Almarg Your expectation was borne out by my experience. It went like this: I installed a Hifi Tuning fuse in my Meridian preamp. Sat down, listened... Hmm, not sure. Is it a little better? I think it's a little better. Maybe I'm imagining it. I can't tell. I better order one for the amp to make sure. That's an exact transcript from my brain, which I am sorry to say, reflects very poorly on my judgment as a consumer. I buy a frivolous item for $35, and when I'm not sure whether it does anything, I buy another one for $50. Good thing my wife controls the money around here. But that's not the point. The point is: I bought another fuse for the amp. Installed it, sat down, listened... Well, that's definitely something. A little less grunge. A little more relaxed. Neat. Let's enjoy some music. And I did. Here's the important part: When I went from John Lee Hooker's acoustic blues to this recording of L'Estate 2 from Vivaldi's Four Seasons... What the [expletive deleted]!! The headroom had increased by, say, 30%. I was stunned. I scratched my head... Maybe the old fuse was dirty. Or defective. Or maybe these things actually work. My money is on #3. All $85 of it. Plus shipping. And btw, Al, all of this happened BEFORE you posted your comment about trying music with a wide dynamic range. So my experiences aren't so easy to dismiss as a product of my overactive imagination (I'm looking at you, MrT). Bryon |
04-19-12: Sonicbeauty Haven't we been through this Sonicbeauty? And on this very thread. Since you are repeating yourself, so will I... 01-26-12: Bryoncunningham The criticism that "it's about the music, not the gear" contributes nothing substantive to the discussion. And it rings false when it's in the mouth of a person who has routinely initiated topics of discussion that are about gear and not music. Oh, and I can't help but notice that your name is Sonicbeauty, not Musicbeauty. Think about it... Bryon |
04-20-12: Chadeffect I agree with this, Chad. I suspect every audiophile has had the experience of having his thoughts about equipment interfere with his enjoyment of the music. When that is presented as a mere statement of fact, I have absolutely no objection. But IMO, Sonicbeauty isn't merely expressing a statement of fact. He is passing judgment on the content of this thread and its participants. That is what I object to. If his judgment wasn't obvious from his last post, it should be obvious from his FIRST post... 01-26-12: Sonicbeauty That should make it abundantly clear that SB's comments are not mere statements of fact but rather judgements, in spite of his subsequent disavowal. Anyone who spends time around here will recognize that judgments of this kind are a commonplace with some posters. Some people would rather denigrate a conversation than participate in it. I sometimes get the impression that these people believe that denigrating a conversation IS participating in it. That is sad. It derails what might otherwise be constructive conversation, and it isolates us from one another, which is contrary to the whole raison d'être of sites like these. Bryon |
04-20-12: Nonoise This is exactly right, IMO. Sharing, as simple as it sounds, is regrettably difficult for some people. It's something all children are taught but many adults forget. It's easy to mistake talking for sharing. They are not the same. With sharing, the intention is to GIVE. There are people on A'gon who give so selflessly it is just remarkable. They give information, advice, support, humor, etc.. Some of those people have participated in this thread. I don't regard myself as a paragon of giving, though I certainly make it a goal. That may strike some as dubious, since I've done more than my share of arguing on this thread, which is the antithesis of sharing. For six years in graduate school I was trained to argue, so I can easily lapse into it. But I seldom enjoy it and usually regret it. Having said all that, I believe that there are times when arguing is exactly what is appropriate. Two scenarios come to mind: to challenge utter nonsense and to stop bullying. But even arguing can be done with a certain amount of restraint, the value of which is that We're trying to have a civilization here. Bryon |