Do you believe in Magic?

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. 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."

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

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

Indeed I was quoting the goobermeister.

Reading comprehension problems seem to run through many of Sabs posts.

Thanks Bryon.

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. :-)

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.

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 Al’s 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. Geoff’s 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). Geoff’s 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 what’s 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, Geoff’s explanations entail no predictions whatsoever.

5. Parsimony. Everybody knows this one. Suffice to say, it doesn’t look like this.

6. Independent Corroboration. So far as I am aware, NONE of Geoff’s 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 explanation’s validity or truthfulness, but taken together, they provide a VERY reliable guide to assessing an explanation’s 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 Al’s assessments of prima facie plausibility. Perhaps “common sense” isn’t the right term. Maybe it’s more like “informed sense.” That is something even more valuable.

Bryon

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

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

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.

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.

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 Eddington’s 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

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.

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.

hi geoffkait:

my advice to you is to keep quiet and ignore further challenges to your products.

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

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.

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

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 Wiki’s article on microlensing, a form of Gravitational Lensing in which the lens can be as small as a single star, or even a planet.

So next time, Geoff, I suggest you take your own advice and actually READ the Wiki article.

But all of this is a ridiculously irrelevant tangent. The subject of Gravitational Lensing only came up in the context of discussing the features of good explanations, one of which is that they entail predictions. The bending of light around objects of sufficient mass, which is now referred to by the general term ‘Gravitational Lensing,’ was simply an illustration of a prediction entailed by a good explanation (General Relativity). The details of Gravitational Lensing are utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is this...

Of the common features of good explanations – conforming to a recognized Model of Explanation, a causal connection between explanandum and explanans, a large Circle of Justification, entailed predictions, parsimony, independent corroboration – your explanations for Machina Dynamica products do not have a SINGLE one.

But I suspect you know the point I was making, and rather than struggle to respond to it, you try to misdirect the conversation with a triviality and irrelevance. That is another act of Obscurantism.

Thank you, Geoff, for continuing to make my point.

A short while ago you said...

If we default to the most skeptical opinions, those with the narrowest definition of the "finite bounds of plausibility," how will that affect progress in many fields of human endeavor? Will we harken back to the dark ages when folks were persecuted for beliefs or abilities that lay outside the norm?

I find that comment ironic, in light of your ceaseless Obscurantism. In the Dark Ages, the powerful withheld knowledge and higher learning from the powerless largely through the use of Obscurantism.

The only person harkening back to the Dark Ages is you.

Bryon

Returning to the original topic of this thread…

After extensive experimentation with ERS cloth, I’ve 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 isn’t a simple roll off, like you get with treble control. It’s something more unusual and difficult to describe. But the end result is less immediacy, and therefore less involvement. So now it’s 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

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.

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.

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.

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 Audio’s cryo’d 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

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.

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.

Mrtennis it looks like you do believe in magic then!

hi chadeffect:

i did not say what i believe in.

i said perception is unreliable and therefore the senses cannot yield knowledge.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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 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

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

"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."

B C. - would you say your friend's system is as resolving as your system when you first tried the ERS paper? Or perhaps as resolving as your system after you got your system to the point where you heard the ERS paper hurt the sound. And if the blind test is negative what will your conclusion be, pray tell?

Geoff -- Yes, I would say that my friend's system is at least as resolving as mine is currently, and possibly more so. If I cannot discriminate the presence/absence of the grounding pigtails in his system, I will conclude that Al may have been right when he suggested that what I heard the day I put in the pigtails might be attributable to some other variable.

From your use of "pray tell," I gather that you are going to say that I cannot conclude anything of the sort, because the pigtails may have some effect in my system but not in his, due to differences in equipment, ac power, acoustics, barometric pressure, solar flares, the state of my electrolytes, etc. etc.

Maybe you were implying something else. It's hard to know when you don't finish your thoughts.

bc

You finished my thoughts quite well, actually. IMO it can be rather difficult getting to the nitty gritty truth of these rather bizarre tweaks and glad to see someone is trying to do so.

Perception is a poor choice of words. We know what we hear. We do not perceive what we hear.
Granted there are many factors that have an influence on what we hear. Mood being the most critical.
I believe an ABA test is the true test. Most are very familiar with the sonics of their system. Any change should be evident in opnes system. The term "Magic" may be just the wrong word to use. There is something going on. If it cannot be measured with the conventional means we have today then what is happening ? Only our own ears with our own system can we make any kind of judgement of such.
It is a personal thing. One size does not fit all. How can one say another is wrong ? It is their perception and frankly that is all that matters. If I believe such is happening then by golly it is. How we arrive at that conclusion is what is moot. Perception is in the eye of the beholder. Chew on that.

Hmmmm may be so however our perception is our only tool. What I perceive to be so is so. Ya know Mr Tennis just like a say all 6H30 applications suck. Not to my ears but maybe to yours.

whiole perception maybe our only way of evaluating sound, it is unreliable and is not knowledge.

hence one is dealing with probability of accurate sense perceptionss.

there is no certainty, no truth, only conjecture.

I wonder what Hayakawa would say about all of this if he were still alive.

It would probably go something like this:
The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized.
The map is NOT the territory.
The word is NOT the thing.

Classification, symbols, truth, context, inferences, judgement, etc. They all mean something different to each of us and they shouldn't.

‘Magic’ is the word I’ve been using to refer to something with a known effect but an unknown explanation. I chose the word ‘magic’ because, when you encounter something with a known effect but an unknown explanation, the experience can be similar to seeing magic tricks performed. I assume that is obvious from the discussion so far.

But I also chose the word ‘magic’ because it expresses a universal human tendency. Every child lives in a world of magical events. Every adult occasionally succumbs to Magical Thinking. And every culture has some form of magical beliefs. Both Ancient and Enlightenment philosophers believed that the hallmark of being human is to think rationally. From what I can tell, the hallmark of being human is to think magically.

There are of course exceptions. What one person experiences as Magic, a more rational or informed person may experience as Mechanism. But no matter how rational or informed you are, the pace at which we as individuals acquire explanations is far outmatched by the pace of science and technology. So there will always be things with known effects but unknown explanations.

Sure, everyone knows how to explain this.
But only some people know how to explain this.
And very few people know how to explain this.
And no one knows how to explain this.

In other words, Magic is here to stay.

IMO.

Bryon

Byron,

Very well put. Hyakawa would have smiled.

You succinctly made it clear, to everyone here, what you meant by your use of the word. Personal agendas can give rise to tendencies to wander off the path.

All the best,
Nonoise

Our educated perception is based on our knowledge and personal exoeriences. Without those yes it is a guess.
If one listens to live music every day then his or her perception of recorded sound isan educated onethough experience.
My perception is just that my perception, Right or wrong it is right for me. Everything sounds different to everyone so is it not the "perception" of the live sound how we evaluate sound ?
At the end of the day yes it is our unreliable perception that makes the call. works for me.

wwhile not disagreeing with the basic definition, i think that as human beings we experience phenomena for ehich we have no explanation, or perhaps an erroneous one.

i think there are many examples of magic in that our store of information is limited and our experiences are so varied that we may encounter a phenomena that is beyond our comprehension.

"If one listens to live music every day then his or her perception of recorded sound isan educated onethough experience.
My perception is just that my perception, Right or wrong it is right for me. Everything sounds different to everyone so is it not the "perception" of the live sound how we evaluate sound?"

Promoting live sound as some sort of benchmark or ultimate criterion might not be such a good idea when one considers that there isn't any real consistency to the sound for various live venues any more than there is in home systems. Obviously we woudn't wish to consider bad sounding or mediocre sounding venues as ideal. What then is the ideal for live sound? And who will determine which venue produces fhe perfect sound that all audio systems should be measured against? One is faced with the same problem in evaluating live sound that one faces when evaluating sound in home audio systems. Where is the absolute sound, who has heard it?

Update... I have not forgotten about my promise to A/B (and preferably, blind A/B) the grounding pigtails that I thought were effective. There was a little snag...

As I mentioned, since my crossovers are sealed in a cabinet in the wall, I was going to A/B the grounding pigtails on a friend's system that I am familiar with. As fate would have it, his system is temporarily down, due to the fact that, during some crossover modding, he blew a tweeter half way across his room. And btw, the first dealer quoted him a $1300 replacement cost for the tweeter. The second dealer gave him a "great deal" at $800. That is just greedy, IMO. I don't know if it's the dealer or the manufacturer or both. I won't mention any names, but the tweeter is made in France from beryllium. It's Focal.

Anyhoo, I will make good on my promise to A/B the grounding pigtails when his system is up and running again. For that purpose, I have purchased EVS Ground Enhancers, which are made from Litz wire, like Audio Prism's Ground Control. But the EVS version is 1/6 the price of Audio Prism's. So not everyone is greedy.

In the meantime, I've been experimenting with other forms of Magic. At the moment, it's Hifi Tuning fuses, which do indeed seem to make an audible difference. I should probably blind A/B these when I blind A/B the Ground Enhancers, though that gives me two chances to look like a fool.

Bryon

Hi Bryon,

Thanks for the update. My one comment is that in assessing the effects of the upgraded fuses on the power amp I would suggest that you make a point of separately assessing the results with music having narrow dynamic range and modest peak volume levels, that presumably would not cause your amp to leave Class A, and, for example, symphonic music having wide dynamic range and brief peaks that reach very high volume levels.

My expectation is that the fuses would be most likely to make a difference when the amount of current flowing through them fluctuates widely and rapidly with the music, which it will not do in the case of analog components that are operating in Class A.

Best regards,
-- Al