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 |
Hi Al, Bryon and everyone else.
Have found this a stimulating thread.
I must say Bryon Al has described you spot on, disciplined approach as evidenced by your many posts.
I have no doubt you experienced something with the pigtails and by your exclamation found it positive.
As Al pointed out there are many variables that may have influenced the outcome, as I know you are well aware of given the stimulating thread you guys had regarding that very subject recently.
Imagine being able to reproduce that result 100 times as suggested all conditions being equal but for the addition of the pigtails! Wouldn't that be something!
Since it is in the realm of possibility to control the variables I think it far easier to replicate your claim than those of some that want you to believe in "magic" alone.
My $.02.
Best,
Dave |
Bryon,
Your 'pigtails' have been used by others here in different forms. Anything from a homemade wire type collector to various retail products that claim to have a beneficial effect. I use a Dakiom device in the same manner. I don't believe it is made in the same way as what you use. It was recommended by a fellow listener at my place and all three of us heard an immediate improvement. It tamed a bright high end tendency and seemed to reduce, overall, noise that I hadn't noticed before. A sort of calming effect. Hard to describe but discernible each and every time it was taken out and reinserted.
Now that was with an older integrated that I have packed away and just for the heck of it, I tried it on my present unit and the effect wasn't anywhere near as pronounced but it was there. My Burson PI-160 is a better made unit than the Classic 6.1 so that may be the reason. I can't really say.
It's hard to describe magic when you don't know how the trick is done.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Hi Bryon,
Given your disciplined approach to things, a lot of the following has probably already occurred to you. But fwiw here is a list of conceivable extraneous variables that comes to mind, which I think need to be eliminated before the difference you perceived can be attributed to the pigtails with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Obviously, a way to eliminate most or all of these possibilities would be to go back and forth several times between having the pigtails in place and not having them in place.
1)Improved contact between the speaker terminals and the speaker cables, resulting from increased pressure and/or scraping away of oxidation that may have occurred during the loosening and re-tightening of the connections.
2)Changes in room temperature. Temperature is a parameter that is fundamental to the physics of transistors and other semiconductor devices.
3)Changes in AC line voltage.
4)Changes in AC line noise.
5)Changes in rfi/emi conditions, such as may be caused by wifi signals, cellphone traffic, nearby radio stations which may broadcast at different power levels during the day vs. at night, etc.
6)Ongoing aging, breakin, loss of breakin, or re-breakin of system components or the speakers.
7)Components being in a different state of warmup during the "before" and "after" parts of the comparison.
Undoubtedly there are other possible extraneous variables that I'm not thinking of.
Best,
-- Al |
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 |
i believe knowledfge comes from the abstract--definitions,and postulates.
i agree with byron. i am a skeptic when it comes to trusting the senses.
i think they are unreliable and are similar to an opinion. there is a probability that they are right (accurate) and a probability they are inaccurate.
one can hear what isn't present and fail to hear what is.
while i may have confidence in my perceptions, i don't consider them knowledge and i accept the possibility that i may be in error regarding what i hear , or not.
the issue of eye witness accounts of an event serves as an example to corroborate my belief. |
Hi Mrtennis,
If that is really true where does that leave science? If we cannot trust our perception how do we observe? So then we are left with magic. |
03-30-12: Mrtennis
after reading 175 posts , i have concluded that since perception is unreliable and it is the means of interacting with our stereo system, all objective considerations, and arguments are academic... 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 |
hi chadeffect:
i did not say what i believe in.
i said perception is unreliable and therefore the senses cannot yield knowledge. |
Mrtennis it looks like you do believe in magic then! |
the thread initially mentioned the subject of stillpoints ers paper.
i use 4 letter size pieces--one on the power transwers of each vtl amp, one on the ps audio power wave transport, placed over the power supply and one on the cover of the ps audio perfect wave dac, placed over its power supply.
whether the application of the product makes a sonic difference can not be known or proven.
after reading 175 posts , i have concluded that since perception is unreliable and it is the means of interacting with our stereo system, all objective considerations, and arguments are academic.
the problem with critical listening is the potential inconsistency of perception.
what is really needed is a well designed listening test that is repeated 100 times.
what one hears one day, one may not hear on another day, and there is no way to assure certainty of hearing, even when corroborated.
my point is therefore, that the issue of magic is moot since aural perception is unreliable. |
perhaps there is a simpler explanation of products which are initially perceived positively , but, after some duration are disliked.
the explanation is the essential unreliability of perception. |
03-28-12: Geoffkait
Only when the stuff was taken entirely outside the house did the sound get back to normal. That's some bad juju. 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 submit that the strongest evidence here is the mercurial nature of the experiences with such supposedly wonder-products. That they can be perceived to be efficacious, only later to be eschewed shows they're essentially worthless. 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 |
Douglas_schroeder, actually, in my experience, it is uncommon that have experiences such as the ERS paper. I never liked it at all and made a valiant effort to get it to work. Usually, I am satisfied by a modest improvement if the tweak is not very expensive. At some point later I decide they aren't worth the effort. With quartz products, I basically gave up as requiring too much trial and error fiddling. |
I submit that the strongest evidence here is the mercurial nature of the experiences with such supposedly wonder-products. That they can be perceived to be efficacious, only later to be eschewed shows they're essentially worthless. |
Hey, same thing happened to me. At first, in part due to all the hoopla surrounding the ERS paper when it came out (was it six years ago?) I thought the sound was better. Then a couple A/Bs later I noticed the sound was actually worse, even when using smaller and smaller squares of the material. The sound became woolly, more opaque, less musical. Even with all the ERS paper taken away from all the electronics and placed on the coffee table the weird sound persisted. Only when the stuff was taken entirely outside the house did the sound get back to normal. That's some bad juju. |
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 |
03-20-12: Geoffkait
Of course, the point of bringing up Einstein rings is that a supermassive object or group of objects is located between the viewer and the object(s) visible due to gravitational lensing. This object or group of objects can be a galaxy, supermassive black hole, or group of galaxies or black holes. But not a star...
For more details on what produces gravitational lensing you need look no further than Wikipedia. You are quite correct, a person need look no further than Wikipedia
Gravitational microlensing is an astronomical phenomenon due to the gravitational lens effect
Microlensing is caused by the same physical effect as strong lensing and weak lensing, but it is studied using very different observational techniques. In strong and weak lensing, the mass of the lens is large enough (mass of a galaxy or a galaxy cluster) that the displacement of light by the lens can be resolved with a high resolution telescope such as theHubble Space Telescope. With microlensing, the lens mass is too low (MASS OF A PLANET OR A STAR) for the displacement of light to be observed easily, but the apparent brightening of the source may still be detected
Gravitational lensing was first observed in 1979, in the form of a quasar lensed by a foreground galaxy. That same year Kyongae Chang and Sjur Refsdal showed that INDIVIDUAL STARS in the lens galaxy could act as smaller lenses within the main lens
[emphasis added] 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 |
Of course, the point of bringing up Einstein rings is that a supermassive object or group of objects is located between the viewer and the object(s) visible due to gravitational lensing. This object or group of objects can be a galaxy, supermassive black hole, or group of galaxies or black holes. But not a star. How massive is a supermassive black hole? Answer at 11.
For more details on what produces gravitational lensing you need look no further than Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens |
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. |
03-20-12: Nonoise
Fascinating.
I always thought that it was a theory but as long ago as 1919 there was proof that light does bend due to strong gravitational forces. 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 |
hi geoffkait:
my advice to you is to keep quiet and ignore further challenges to your products. |
Fascinating.
I always thought that it was a theory but as long ago as 1919 there was proof that light does bend due to strong gravitational forces.
I need a new rock to live under. One with a better view. |
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. |
03-18-12: Geoffkait
B C - the supermassive object responsible for bending the light is not a star but a supermassive black hole, like the one in the center of our galaxy, or a collection of black holes, things of that nature. Even a very large star doesn't have nearly the mass/gravity for the effect to show up significantly. 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 |
A shoot first/apologize later approach is unwise sabai. Had you read my posts more carefully it would have been unnecessary.
Lucky for most of us you chose pizza hut not law enforcement as a career path. |
Bryoncunningham, you say "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." Perhaps I was too subtle, I totally agree with you. Implausible is a vicious concept not unlike common sense. Both are very unscientific. Were we really a science, this would be very serious. |
Thanks, Bryon, for the perceptive and instructive analysis, and for the compliment.
Yes, "informed sense" is a better term than "common sense" for what I was trying to express. It comes down to having a good instinct for where to draw the line separating the plausible from the implausible. Experience, research, empirical assessment, and a good understanding of the underlying technological principles, if applied cautiously and with an open mind, are complementary to each other in improving that instinct.
With regard to the technological element, a good understanding of those principles can help to provide a quantitative perspective on effects that may seem plausible when described qualitatively, but which may or may not be significant quantitatively.
Also, that understanding can help to enable recognition and control of extraneous variables, which may otherwise lead to attribution of a perceived effect to something other than its true cause. It has been my feeling that in many cases of disagreement between those who claim to perceive effects that seemingly make no sense, and those who allege that the placebo effect is in play, what is really going on is a failure to recognize and control extraneous variables, and/or an over-generalization of the applicability of the results.
One word which has not yet been mentioned in this thread is "discipline." Perhaps that's what it all comes down to.
Thanks again. Best,
-- Al
|
B C - the supermassive object responsible for bending the light is not a star but a supermassive black hole, like the one in the center of our galaxy, or a collection of black holes, things of that nature. Even a very large star doesn't have nearly the mass/gravity for the effect to show up significantly.
Yes, It would be nice to get a third party verification of some of my products. I think that would just swell. Whom do you recommend? NASA, DARPA, Harvard. Oh, even better - AES. Lol. Are you volunteering?
Tootles |
03-17-12: Geoffkait
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 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
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori. 03-17-12: Almarg
The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise." 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 |
Audiofeil, I sent a sincere apology. You could have been gracious. Instead you have chosen to be spiteful -- and inaccurate. Pity. |
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. |
Almaty said,
"The opinions of EE's will differ on these kinds of questions just as they will among the general population. Keep in mind that the majority of the general population would probably consider all high end audiophiles to be at least a little bit wacko :-)
For example, many EE's would assert that all cables, and even all amplifiers, sound exactly the same. Whereas one EE in this thread (me) asserted early on that Bryon's findings with the ERS paper, although not readily and precisely explainable, were certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility.
The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise. For that reason, among others, I said that "broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play." That is the antithesis of "defaulting to the most skeptical opinions."
While EEs by training should have no trouble with many audio related issuses, the wide wide world of controversial tweaks presents different problems for them to get their heads around, as it were. I suspect even ERS paper may give some EEs conniptions, since its effects are so unpredictable. But when an EE wonders into the world of other controversial tweaks, it is often the case that the devices do not lend themselves to easy analysis by those with a strong electronics and engineering background. I actually would not place ERS paper in the same category as the Tice Clock, Mpingo Discs, the Green Pen, Schumann frequency generator, intelligent chip, Demagnetizing and ionization of CDs and LPs, quartz crystals and Silver Rainbow Foil. This is the big paradigm shift that has occurred - we can no longer rely (exclusively) on what we learned in engineering school to correctly assess the "plausibility" of many of these newfangled devices, the operational mechanisms of which appear to lie outside of the relative comfort of the concepts and mathematical formulas found in EE textbooks, or in any textbooks! This is actually the reason these things are called controversial, and why they stir up such, uh, controversy. :-) |
Indeed I was quoting the goobermeister.
Reading comprehension problems seem to run through many of Sabs posts.
Thanks Bryon. |
Oh, and btw... 03-18-12: Sabai
Audiofeil... Regarding your quote of Jack Bybee who refers to Harvard... I think Audiofeil was quoting Geoff, not Jack Bybee. bc |
03-17-12: Sabai
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. 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
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.
"...to make a really excellent cable, one must combine technical knowledge with tedious, empirical evaluation. Youve 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." 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 |
Sabai, I was not referring to Bybee.
Learn to read and then criticize.
Thank you |
|
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? |
Almarg, I always tense when "common sense" is mentioned. It is exceedingly unscientific. Everybody knows man cannot fly, etc.
I am decidedly unscientific when it comes to audio. I merely have to please myself. It is like wine, women, and song, just a matter of tastes, not science. I am very open-minded and thus have many "tweaks" lying around. Many initially impressed me only to prove of too little value to continue, but yet others ultimately detracted more than they contributed. |
03-17-12: Geoffkait
I am fairly certain we all have differing bounds of plausibility, and differing views on what constitutes a "satisfactory" explanation. 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? ....
03-17-12: Tbg
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori. EEs seem to have a lower level of implausible, probably as that is their training.... The opinions of EE's will differ on these kinds of questions just as they will among the general population. Keep in mind that the majority of the general population would probably consider all high end audiophiles to be at least a little bit wacko :-) For example, many EE's would assert that all cables, and even all amplifiers, sound exactly the same. Whereas one EE in this thread (me) asserted early on that Bryon's findings with the ERS paper, although not readily and precisely explainable, were certainly not outside the bounds of plausibility. The real issue, as both of you alluded to, is where to draw the line between plausibility and implausibility. Obviously the choice of where to draw that line will generally be subjective, debatable, and imprecise. For that reason, among others, I said that "broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play." That is the antithesis of "defaulting to the most skeptical opinions." My basic point is that reason, judgment, common sense, and technical understanding (as well as open-mindedness) need not be and should not be left at the door when a listening room is entered. Regards, -- Al |
You're insulting Barnum by mentioning him in the same sentence as the goobermeister. |
any publicity is good publicity & from the looks of Geofkait & Capt Coconuts sales feedback they don't need any help. these guys are cleaning some clocks. PT Barnum woulda loved it. |
03-16-12: Sabai
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. 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 |
Bryon,
I just had to mention that I now understand, anew, and appreciate your "those who confuse the Obscure with the Profound" mini treatise. It ties up lots of theories (conspiratorial and the like) that permeate our lives. And I do believe it is intentional, as it works. Greenspan did it in order to rise to the incompetent level he achieved and it's used throughout the art world in order to keep real art out. Pick any endeavor and you'll see it being done, to some degree. The intensity goes up as the value of what's being sold rises. The correlation cannot be denied.
Nice touch.
It's not my intention to appear mean spirited but hopefully this does tie things up.
All the best,
Nonoise |
03-16-12: Csmgolf
Actually, if you can read and comprehend plain English, it happened exactly the way Bryon said. He went through 6 of the so called "explanations" of your products. 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
In your own words you were being confrontational and I responded. Those are not my own words, Geoff. When I used the word 'confrontation,' here is what I said... 03-14-12: Bryoncunningham
[My last post] 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. 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 |
Almarg, the only real question is do we all agree as to what is implausible and on how implausible it needs to be to be rejected a priori. EEs seem to have a lower level of implausible, probably as that is their training. The contrast between my undergraduate course in physics and EE are the reason I never completed the EE major.
I still remember StillPoints ERS paper, totally implausibly affecting my sound adversely just being in my cabinet in the listening room. Of course, that only proves that it had an effect only a negative one. |
01-22-12: Almarg
Each issue and each tweak should be considered on an individual basis, and broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play. But that latitude should remain WITHIN FINITE BOUNDS OF PLAUSIBILITY!!
I am fairly certain we all have differing bounds of plausibility, and differing views on what constitutes a "satisfactory" explanation. 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? If we had limited the boundaries of plausibility for discovery and of science would we have big bang theory, black hole theory, the Hubble Telescope, faster than sound aircraft, satellite communications, a man on the moon, organ transplant methodology, quantum physics, the iPhone and iPad. Isn't what is really needed are folks who do not feel constrained by arbitrary limitations to ingenuity and scientific discovery that are implied in the phrase, "within the infinite bounds of plausibility?"
Fair heart n'e'r won fair maiden.
Ta Ta |
03-15-12: Cbw723
Bryon, I agree with one of your earlier comments: they should just say we dont know why it works, but it does. And then offer a money back guarantee. That is my feeling also. To me it is a turnoff when an explanation is presented that I know to be techno-gibberish. Concerning the broader issues that are being argued/discussed, IMO the bottom line is as I stated early in this thread: 01-22-12: Almarg
Each issue and each tweak should be considered on an individual basis, and broad latitude should be allowed for the possibility that subtle and counter-intuitive phenomena may be at play. But that latitude should remain WITHIN FINITE BOUNDS OF PLAUSIBILITY!! As a fellow audiophile said in a thread here some years ago, one doesn't have to jump out of an airplane at 10,000 feet without a parachute in order to determine that it's not a good idea. Some things are sufficiently implausible that they can be discounted "a priori". Regards, -- Al |
Well so long as we're all quoting each other, here's a snippet from my email exchange with the goobermeister concerning his opinion of Audiogon's members:
"Now there's a group of distiction. Not exactly the faculty of Harvard. If you know what I mean. LOL"
But he sure doesn't laugh at you when taking your money.
Caveat emptor folks. |
