Do you believe in Magic?

I agree that trying to understand their explanations is an exercise in futility. What they say is either way above me or deliberately obscure. Never mind. The main thing is that Bybees work. When I buy audio I don't need to understand everything. As long as my ears are happy.

Byroncunningham, I believe in John Sebastian and magic. I have had quite a few magical experiences with my system -- some more magical than others. I'm constantly fiddling around with wires and tweaks and am often happily surprised with the results.

One of the best things for my system are Bybee AC Quantum Purifiers. I use them throughout my system along with other Bybee products. I have no commercial connection with Bybee or any other company. Just a happy customer.

I have used ERS paper with good results. One of the ways I use it is to roll up a full sheet and insert it into an empty paper towel roll. I run power cords in series and link them with burn-in adapters. The ERS Roll fits perfectly over one "unit" and helps clean the sound.

Hi Byroncunningham, I had a bit of the same magic with the Teslaplex and the Teslaplex SE. A lot of this is system dependent. I have not tried the Maestro.

I agree. ERS paper can sometimes degrade the sound, it can sometimes do nothing, and it can sometimes do wonders.

I must say that discovering the Bybee products has been one of the major magic events for me. You might try a Bybee Quantum AC Purifier. They go for about $300 used on Audiogon. If you like it you'll probably want to try more Bybee products. I use Bybee products in series and parallel with cables from 3 companies and the synergy is stunning. I must have at least 15 different Bybee products in my system.

It doesn't cost much to give one a try. You have little to lose since you can usually sell Bybees at close to the price you bought them for -- if you buy used.

Byron c, I wonder if this also includes Synergistic Research's Quantum Tunneling and the Kemp Quantum QA Plugs and the Quantum Physics Noise Disrupters -- all of which are actively bought and sold on Audiogon? I imagine that the word quantum does not have too many negative connotations for the buyers of these products who have found that they add sonic value to their audio systems.

I believe there are significant differences.

Regarding marketing, if a manufacturer is trying to be deliberately obscure when describing a product there may be various reasons for this. This does not mean that the product is not effective, ipso facto. In my opinion.

Hi Byron, I agree -- completely. Actually, I have at least 2 dozen "quantum" products from 3 different makers in my system. There is something very curious about all these products. They work incredibly well and I would not part with a single one. The names on these products are Synergistic Research, Audio Magic and Bybee.

The description is not the described. The perception may be explained in various ways. But it exists in its own realm outside the world of explanation -- whether valid, partially valid or invalid.

In our audio world, perception must take precedence. Otherwise audio becomes an intellectual exercise. We can listen to various aspects or parts of an audio experience and explain them in various ways, or listen to a whole piece and explain it in various ways. But it is the whole experience that is of primary importance. And the experience transcends the intellect. IMO.

Byron, you are exactly correct. IMO.

"A scientific explanation isn't valid because it's intuitive, or plausible, or satisfying." There are many commonly accepted scientific theories and propositions that have been proven false. But the latter are often politically incorrect. This has been true through history -- the history or science , the history or audio and indeed throughout human history.

Geoff, you stated:

"... 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 question is why "must be" there be? IMO there is no reason at all why there "must be". You and others may wish that there be an explanation for everything out there but that does not mean that there is one. And if there is not, or if the explanation is not satisfactory, does that detract from the enjoyment of the music?

Audio is not an intellectual matter -- unless you make it so. The word audio comes from the Latin. It means "I hear". Music is a right hemisphere event. For me the enjoyment of music has nothing whatsoever to do with explanations.

Ether, I think there may be some confusion here. Geoff is referring to the explanations about the products -- not the products themselves and how they perform. This is an intellectual thing. IMO.

Byron, sorry, my comments above are a misstatement on my part. They should read:

Byron, you are exactly correct, IMO, when you state "A scientific explanation isn't valid because it's intuitive, or plausible, or satisfying."

There are many commonly accepted scientific theories and propositions that have been proven false. They are often successful because they are politically correct. This has been true through history -- the history of science , the history of audio and indeed throughout human history."

Geoff, I never heard a satisfied customer complaining about "controversial devices and tweaks" -- or demanding "scientific" proof and blind testing. A lot of people are happy to trust their ears and enjoy the music. Who would be deterred from owning a product that gave great results but which was poorly explained?

Regarding science, so-called science has been proven false so many times throughout history that this is where the LOL should often be inserted. IMHO.

Byron, your statement is not entirely correct, IMO:

"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."

So-called science is often based on assertion backed by "reasonable" arguments, not on evidence. Please excuse the digression that I will use as an obvious example. Let's look at the field of medicine for an analogy -- the issue of silver amalgam fillings. They are 50% mercury. Before mercury is mixed into "amalgam" there is a special safety protocol the dentist is required to follow. But once mercury is in the mouth "science" comes to the rescue and makes mercury harmless using "reasonable arguments". Pseudo-science is evident in many areas of human activity, serving the interests of those with special agendas. This has been true throughout human history.

Science is not "the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence." For instance, herbal medicine is systematically based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence. It is only in recent history that science has taken up the challenge to "prove" what herbalists have known for centuries. That "proof" is often used for commercial ends -- to promote the patent process.

How is this related to audio? We should not automatically believe everything that comes to us supported by "audio science" -- nor should we disbelieve what comes to us through the human ear without the benefit of "scientific proof". The latter is not ipso facto invalid. IMO. Thank God there are audio phenomena that are not susceptible to measurement. If this were not the case then all the magic would be taken from the music.

Tbg, The empirical method and the scientific method are not the same at all. In the realm of medicine, science includes clinical evidence in the form of "double blind testing" but it is based on "studies". The latter open the door for cooking the books to serve those with "special agendas". Empirical truth is based exclusively on clinical evidence. Science rejects empirical evidence as "proof" because science states this form of evidence is merely "anecdotal".

I don't understand what you mean when you state "I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science." Please clarify.

Geoff, I note that you completely sidestepped the content of Byron's comments by diverting the discussion to ERS paper and by indulging in other polemical digressions. Frankly, I thought Byron's comments about your statements being obscurantist were spot on.

Audiofeil, Maybe he was just slinging back some of the goob that has been slung at him on Audiogon. If those who regularly use insults to comment on the products of manufacturers they are not pleased were to employ a more respectful tone they might expect a more respectful response. Is it reasonable to expect a civil reply from those to whom respect has not been shown?

Bryon, Sorry about my typo error for your name.

Cbw723,

You say "Science provides structure for investigation" but so-called "scientific investigation" is often preceded by bias. Science is often used in the service of those with special agendas. Science can be used and has historically been systematically used to arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Science is often fraudulent. So-called "scientific scrutiny" is often just an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

You say "The "empirical method" used without scientific rigor is simply witchcraft." If this were true then much of the early development in the fields of electronics and medicine would have been automatically destined for the garbage can. On the contrary, empiricism, is often the cornerstone for further discovery. This is an historical fact.

Empirical evidence may be "scientifically" backed at some point, but it may not be. This does not in the least diminish its importance. There are cases where empirical evidence is systematically ignored by science because it does not fit pre-determined conclusions that science has already arrived at. "Science" can be very closed-minded. It is often used to service political agendas. IMO.

Bryon,
Please see my latest posting. It explains more of what I am getting at. Ideally, science works the way you have described. In fact, it does not always turn out that way because of special interests and political agendas, especially in the field of medicine.

Bryon and Cbw723,
I find Paul Kaplan's comments (of Paul Kaplan Cable) on the importance of empirical evaluation relevant here. His views reflect my own views on this subject. I believe they also reflect on high end audio in general.

"While my access to sophisticated measurement tools confirmed much of my “lower resolution,” lower frequency investigations, it also confirmed that measurements don’t account for much of a cables performance. This isn’t to say that ultimately metrics won't be found that correlate more accurately with performance, or that one can’t make a horrible cable based on known measurements."

"But to make a really excellent cable, one must combine technical knowledge with tedious, empirical evaluation. You’ve got to build, listen, make another with a single specific change, listen, evaluate, decide what characteristics may account for a given measureable and/or subjective change, and build yet another to hopefully verify. Repeat until done."

Audiofeil, having declared publicly that you have 52 years of experience you'd think a person would be able to bring more maturity to these Audiogon forums -- and more respect. I have more than 52 years experience. I have strong opinions as those who read my postings know. But I try to keep my level of discussion civil and respectful. That is the least we can do here.

You cannot even bring yourself to call Jack Bybee by his name. Instead, you prefer to mock Jack Bybee and use a demeaning insult instead of his proper name. How would you feel if people used an insulting name for you on Audiogon instead of your moniker? You know that Jack Bybee does not contribute to forums so you give your invective full reign knowing he will not reply -- and knowing most people choose to ignore your postings. Because that is what they deserve.

Even if you do not agree with someone you should have enough respect to refer to a person by his or her proper name -- especially someone who is 82 years old and whose products have been widely accepted and very positively reviewed. Would you also choose to demean respected reviewers of Jack Bybee's products -- people like the widely-respected Clement Perry of Stereo Times?

Regarding your quote of Jack Bybee who refers to Harvard I think his comment very aptly describes many people on Audiogon who bring the level of discussion down to the sub-basement instead of elevating it. I wonder if Jack Bybee hit a personal nerve with you. You have commented on Audiogon that others who post here do not have your beard of wisdom. Do you think your inane "Johnny One Note" postings exhibit the least bit wisdom -- or dignity?

Bryon,
When you say "the corruption of medical research for profit" you hit the nail on the head. Medicine has become corrupted by entrepreneurial activity on the part of medical practitioners and pharmaceutical companies. So-called double blind testing can easily be skewed to reach pre-determined results.

The politics of medicine enters the picture regarding many issues. One of the most prominent examples of this is the farce of the ADA calling mercury fillings silver amalgams to avoid legal liability that would be incurred by the ADA and its supporting cast at the FDA. The legal liability has been estimated to be in the area of 3 trillion dollars. Trillion not billion.

"Moms Against Mercury" won a lawsuit against the FDA over this (see autism and ADD) in 2008 but it was conveniently "overturned" by the very same FDA in 2009. Charlie Brown was the courageous lawyer for "Moms Against Mercury".

The ADA turns the most powerful neurotoxin on the planet -- mercury -- into a "controversy" by putting the onus of proof on those who "claim" mercury is toxic to prove that it is in fact toxic. Then they turn science on its head in mercury's defense. In the dental office it is considered deadly -- in the mouth it miraculously becomes neutralized by "amalgamating" it with 35% silver and other metals.

So-called silver amalgam fillings are 50% mercury. They should be called what they are -- mercury fillings. But the ADA tells dentists if they mention the word mercury to a patient they can have their license revoked. This is science in the service of politics and the almighty dollar. The ADA is a revolving door to the FDA. The FDA's dental devision is chock full of former employees of the ADA. This is a prime example of the politics of medicine. There is no conflict of interest. There is one one single interest. And it is not the health of the patient.

Bryon, you note that "Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence." Once again, you hit the nail on the head. The fact is that mercury is the most powerful neurotoxin know to man. The fact is that physicians -- especially neurologists -- never rule our mercury as a cause neurological disease. The whole "scientific" process of "ruling out" which is supposed to be the basis of the diagnostic process is clearly selective in the field of medicine. So-called medical science is essentially politically and financially motivated.

I agree that "conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake". There are good scientists and there are good doctors. It is the medical system that is corrupt and that co-opts the medical profession from medical school right down the line.

Returning to audio, I believe what Paul Kaplan was commenting on was not only the necessity for observation, but also on the fact that not everything in audio is measurable. I find it interesting that there have been a number of instances of this recently in Audioland.

John Atkinson of Stereophile has been questioned regarding two of his "measurement" sessions that were contradicted by the reviewers' observations. The two instances I am talking about refer to the April 2011 Stereophile review of the Playback Designs MPS-5 and the recent Stereophile review of the AMR-DP-777. There are many more instances of this dichotomy but these two examples stand out in my mind as good examples of the ear being unsupported by or contradicted by technical measurements. It could be a case of one or the other -- or both the above.

Your interpretation of my remarks is correct: "the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." I appreciate your comments.

Audiofeil,
If you were referring to Geoff and not Jack Bybee my sincere apologies for following the wrong tangent on this string.

Audiofeil, I sent a sincere apology. You could have been gracious. Instead you have chosen to be spiteful -- and inaccurate. Pity.

Frankly, I do not understand the preference given to insults on Audiogon. While replies to insults are often flagged as provocative the insults themselves are not. I believe if Audiogon allows Audiofeil to insult posters then it should also allow those who are insulted to reply. Otherwise they should not allow his insults to appear on these forums.

Audiofeil, what was unwise was your choice to insult with this statement after an apology was given:

"Lucky for most of us you chose pizza hut not law enforcement as a career path."

Allowing your insults as the last word only encourages further insults and discourages those who are insulted from participating. If my reply is disallowed here then this will be the last time I post to any Audiogon forum.

I thank Audiogon for allowing my last post. Although I agree with Ted Denney of Synergistic Research that it is best just to ignore insulters I think there comes a time when being frank when faced with this kind of situation -- while remaining polite and respectful -- serves a constructive purpose.

We are here to exchange opinions. If we cannot be polite and respectful then the level of discussion will deteriorate and some posters will just back off. This does not encourage the kind of participation that many of us appreciate. Full participation should always be encouraged. But when gratuitous insults are routinely allowed to stand the discussion often degrades as a result.

There are ways to let people know you do not like their opinions or their attitude without using clearly insulting language. I feel that Audiogon should have guidelines that delineate where to draw the line in order to keep worthwhile discussions active. Once a discussion degrades because of lack of civility or lack of respect it often deteriorates beyond reprieve. And that is a pity, IMO.

It is like a boxing match. If there is a low blow then that poster should be given fair warning -- publicly. If the other side replies in kind they should be given fair warning -- publicly. If there is a third infraction by either side that poster should be disallowed for the duration of the string. In this way, I believe that these strings will become self-policing and there will be far fewer instances of this occurring. This is meant as a constructive suggestion for how to manage troublesome threads.