Well, I totally expected some would not agree with my somewhat controversial post. I am being sincere though. I am not being cynical of audiophiles, I am one myself. I have been roaming Audiogon for years, and have written-responded on many occasions - also wrote a few reviews (including a 10 year old one on the great Verity Audio Parsifal speaker I used to own - lot's of '' air around the instruments with this one! ;) ''
I like nice gear and technology as much as the next guy believe me, or I wouldn't be here contributing to the debate.
There is NOTHING wrong with toying around for years trying to improve the sound of one's system. I was just pointing out the fact that it is exactly what it is - getting the best sound. Now, a more elegant and noble way of presenting this is by implying that we do this to get to the ''soul'' of the music. Of course this may be true for some, but, not many I think.
I do apologize however if anyone took it personally with my reference to ''wasted'' hours. It is of course a very personal thing to dispose of one's free time as he/she wishes and I regret offending anyone by this. But, taking things in perspective, and on a strictly personal level, I do think that those upgrade-tweaking-posting ads-replying- negotiating-shipping-cashing in the money then buying again-routine represent countless hours that could have probably have been spent on more various and worthwhile endeavors and people GIVEN the ''audiophile'' results I have collected from those hours. This is my experience only. Now, a reader of this post may take it as either ''Hogwash'', ''Recognize himself in this'', or "thanks, there may be a wake-up call in there somewhere!" Of course we are ALL gear-upgrade lovers here, or else we'd all be on the Gramophone website, devoted 95% to music and 5% gear, instead of Stereophile and Absolute Sound (and other rags) with 95% gear ad 5% music.
Just my opinion, nothing more, and of course I don't ming the flames, it's part of the fun of contributing to a audio forum.
One smart response on this thread is the analogy to a transistor radio. I am in COMPLETE agreement with this. Let's say that, for example, one is in total awe and admiration of (put your favorite artist's name here). Everytime you hear this artist, or band or whatever - it is total joy. You love the voice, brings back memories, creates new ones, whatever. Now let's suppose there are artist's that you absolutely don't care for - like (strictly personal) Kenny G, the man with the perpetual ''Panasonic-your meal is ready-microwave tone''. Don't laugh, this is what this music sounds to me. Given the chance, I would take my fav artist or song any day on a GE clock radio anyday over 5 minutes of the microwave man on a 100K system - strictly on a musical enjoyment basis. But for sound fireworks and spectaculario (just made up the name I think), sure, bring the 100K system over and let the sound sparks fly! (even with Kenny G probably).
Have a nice day everyone. |
It looks like we have consensus:
microwave sound effects are something we can all do without.:) |
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 |
What was the other outlet?
Regards, |
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 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 |
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. |
Ok, Sabai, you convinced me. I will look around for some Bybee products. :-)
bc |
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. |
I think the folks at Bybee should say, "These work. We don't know why."
You think that's more honest? Interesting. |
no, I don't believe in magic.
Bryon - if you want to really hear what is going on, just invite a friend over and ask him to blidfold you while you listen to the music and he "switches" the tweaks on and off.
If you can't get it right at least 70% of the time - it was purely psychological effect. And if you get it right, then you proven that it works and don't worry about the HOW.
(and even if it turns out to be a placebo effect - I am not saying that this placebo effect wasn't worth your money - after all if your brain believes it sounds better, it does sound better to YOU)
We must remember that listening to music is not an objective function - because, music means something to us. It affects us psychologically and emotionally.
I strongly believe that this hobby is about equipment as much as our individual interpretation of music/sound according to our own unique state of mind.
....there is the equipment, the room and your brain. |
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. |
I have to admit, Geoff, I don't understand your comment. |
Byron c - 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 |
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. |
There is no boundary between classical physics and quantum mechanics. |
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. |
03-05-12: Geoffkait
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 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 |
Byron C - I'm afraid you misquoted me. What I actually said 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."
See the difference?
No quarter asked, none given, I always say. |
Does anyone really believe the teleportation tweek can work? Sorry, off topic a bit, but I can't help it. P.T Barnum anyone? |
since we are already in the magic and quantum realm:
http://www.nathanmarciniak.com/elemental/ |
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 |
I cannot recall a case where a manufacturer attempted to obscure the real explanation for why his product works, only cases where skeptical audiophiles refused to accept "far out" explanations, wanting instead to believe there must be a conventional, more mundane explanation. Now, there may be cases where a manufacturer's explanation is either incomplete or incorrect, but IMHO not because he was trying to be deceptive. Unconventional or preposterous devices and tweaks are often discovered accidentally; then the manufacturer, assuming he wishes to provide some sort of explanation, is faced with the task of doing the best he can, based on his observations and (technical) background.
On occasion, as with the Teleportation Tweak, the manufacturer (moi) does not attempt an explanation. in my case, it's because I wish to keep the operational details secret and because I do not know all the details of how the thing works. Usually I do my best to explain things, so the TT is an exception. |
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. |
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 |
"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."
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics. 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?
"I would imagine that, as the designer and manufacturer of Machina Dynamica products, you know very well the limits I'm describing."
I prefer not think in terms of limits, myself. Yes, I realize Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations." |
hi frogman:
you quoted geoffkait regarding knowledge not being absolute.
in matematics and other tautological endeavors knowledge is absolute. knowledge must be true and a certain, and be subject to proof.
if you know something it must be true and you must be certain about it and be able to peove it, else, there is a probability that what is claimed as knowledge is false.
in all things abstract knowledge is an absolute.
in the empirical world, information is acquired by the method of induction.
the information so acquired cannot be known absolutely, because there is always the exception which has yet to occur.
this is an argument of an epistemological nature.
i am a skeptic, and while i have confidence in the stimuli i perceive and make decisions based upon them, and may learn something new every day, i don't ever claim to know them, for knowledge cannot come from sense perception.
my skepticism could relate to the topic of magic , in that i may perceive something i cannot explain. such a case would indeed be magic. however, there is a chance i may make an error and hear something which does not exist. since i am not certain that i hear something but am confident of it, one is dealing with a stochastic process.
of course it follows that if i hear something, e.g., when i change a cable, i may not be able to explain why i hear it, or my explanations may be invalid. so, i do believe in magic, because of the unreliability of perception.
knowledge requires absolute proof.
knowledge pertains mainly to logic, mathematics and definitions |
i would like to add another point.
most explanations of why things work, or explanations as to the bases for changes in sound are hypothetical, because they cannot be proven absolutely.
again, in the world of audio, probability rules, not knowledge. |
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. |
03-08-12: Geoffkait
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics. 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 |
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. I also realize there is a class of audio devices and tweaks that are purported to operate on a different level - on our sensory perception of the sound.
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.
Finally, I think it would be productive if there were an independent organization that could evaluate these mysterious products we're talking about and offer explanations as to how they work, especially the devices that fall in the second category - the ones that affect the listener's perception of the sound, not the electronic or acoustic signal.
|
03-09-12: Sabai
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. 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 |
I tend to think that anyone looking for "satisfying" explanations will probably be, uh, unsatisfied by the explanations provided for many of the less conventional audio tweaks and devices that have popped up over the last couple of decades. Let's see...how about silver rainbow foil, Tice Clock, Shakti Stone, Shun Mook mpingo disc, SteinMusic Harmonizer, Schumann Frequency Generator, the Green Pen, LP and CD demagnetizers, ionizers, the tiny little bowls from Tchang and Synergistic Research, liquid cables. Obviously, some of my devices should be on the list, too, including the Intelligent Chip. |
my last post in this futile discussion:
- Rather than argue over some "what if concepts" - why don't anyone has yet to agree to a blinded study??
Again - unless anyone, especially Geoff, wants to conduct well control study, let's just stop here. |
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. |
I'm all for well controlled studies, heck I'm even for blind testing or whatever type of testing anyone wishes to do. Why anyone would think I am not in favor of well-controlled studies is beyond me. Why, it's almost like you think I'm trying to pull a fast one. Lol. But it is not for me, the manufacturer, to do the testing; as I mentioned previously, there should be a competent, independent third party responsible for designing, conducting and providing results of the studies for these controversial devices and tweaks, just as there should be for any other audio speaker, component or cable, etc. |
I would add one final note. I bought four sheets. Successively, on my Reimyo 300B amp, I started with a half sheet. It was awful. I tried a quarter sheet. It was awful. I tried an eighth sheet, same results. Ultimately, I had a 1/2" by 1/2" sheet and still hated it. I removed all of it and put it in a cabinet in my room. Something was still wrong. Ultimately, when I put it in my car, I could not hear its bad effect. I sold all of it. We all are different! |
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. |
Sakai, you are correct, there may be some confusion here.
Tbg, so it wasn't Magic for you, is that what I hear you saying? Of course you know by now I had to burn mine. One can't help wondering how many manufacturers have incorporated the stuff into their components and cables. |
03-10-12: Sabai
You and others may wish that there be an explanation for everything out there but that does not mean that there is one. 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
my last post in this futile discussion:
- Rather than argue over some "what if concepts" - why don't anyone has yet to agree to a blinded study??
Again - unless anyone, especially Geoff, wants to conduct well control study, let's just stop here. 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
Ultimately, when I put it in my car, I could not hear its bad effect. 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
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. 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 |
Somebody didn't pick up on the humor of Sabai's remark.
I've said it before and it's worth repeating: a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Magic.
Natives on some forlorn island believe a camera is Magic and steals their souls. The opposition dismisses controversial tweaks as ritualistic, witchcraft, psychological, hypnotic and insists they disobey all the known laws of science. So, what else is new? |
Outstanding post, Bryon. Beautifully said!
Best,
-- Al
|
Bryoncunningham, I think you are right about science ultimately getting it right, but also scientists have interest as well as pressure to publish. Most would not really devote time to why some cables sound better. Why quartz in some place improves music reproduction, in other harms it, and in others does nothing.
I must say that I set a pretty high standard for tweaks. A minor benefit isn't worth the trouble. I have never really understood the very unscientific notion that a panel of people using double blind 30 seconds exposures to music and having to make a same/different decision has any use for me. I have also never understood why anything other than the basic laws of electrical engineering means it must be snakeoil and therefore no one should sell or buy them. |
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...
...the box might even be empty. bc |
In the words of Wittgenstein's friend and colleague Georg Henrik von Wright: "He was of the opinion... that his ideas were generally misunderstood and distorted even by those who professed to be his disciples. He doubted he would be better understood in the future. He once said he felt as though he were writing for people who would think in a different way, breathe a different air of life, from that of present-day men."
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - Wm Burroughs
:-) |
