Do you believe in Magic?
such as room acoustics and elimination of vibration, that are either overlooked or can't be addressed by the design engineers. Yes, room acoustics, vibration problems, and other variables make perfect sense. This is still dealing with facts that are known. Coming up with new designs, such as better amps, D/A converters, and other new gear, yes. The same laws will apply in designing new technologies. Science always worked one way. Changing that is not going to happen. |
These tweaks, if one assumes they work, seem to indicate that the knowledge of the design engineers is either not perfect or there are other factors one must consider besides electronics circuit design and speaker design, such as room acoustics and elimination of vibration, that are either overlooked or can't be addressed by the design engineers. Knowledge is not an absolute and continues to evolve. They do the best they can under the circumstances. :-) |
One major problem with a lot of these tweaks is the fact that they are being used on equipment designed by Engineers with known scientific knowledge about how these things work. If they didn't have this known and proven knowledge, we wouldn't have audio systems with analog, digital, and all kinds of other equipment involved in the process, used to make this reproduction happen. If these Engineers go outside the limits of these known and proven scientifically proven facts, things don't work. With the fact that they design these things with this known and proven scientific knowledge, and they say some of these things cannot work like this because it is outside the range of working proven parameters, it would make total sense to accept this. Don't forget, they designed, and made these products possible. If it wasn't for these people with this knowledge, we wouldn't be able to discuss it here either. A lot of these tweak guys couldn't make any of this happen. These are just facts. |
a connotation of magic might be something which is perceived but has no objective basis. i don't believe that magic exists in the empirical world. i believe there are perceptions which cannot be explained, using scientific principles. either the perception is erroneous, or engineers and "scientists" have not yet discovered the parameters necessary to measure or explain the perception , objectively. the problem with subjective judgment and sense perception is the possibility of hearing that which is not present , or failing to hear that which is. . so, it would seem that magic is a term which may be used, when someone has no explanation as to the occurrence of an event. there is an explanation. however, it remains to be discovered by a brilliant person. |
01-23-12: Mrtennis I did. It was the second sentence in the OP: "Let's say that Magic is any effect not explainable by known physical laws." That is a definition. It may not be a definition you like. i suppose in audio "things", which seem on the surface have no reason to have an effect upon the sound of a stereo system, might be construed as magic... Ahh... literalism. MrT, the use of the word 'magic' is ironic. I said as much in an earlier post. Tubegroover was exactly correct in his interpretation of my remarks. I'm using the word 'magic' to refer to an effect about which there is little understanding, even among experts. The contrast to magic is mechanism. So that I'm not accused of failing to define 'mechanism,' let's say that a mechanism is any physical entity, property, or law that explains an observable effect. That brings me to an observation about magic and mechanism that I hope will constructively contribute to this thread... One man's magic is another man's mechanism. That is to say, the understanding of physical laws varies from individual to individual. Al has an expert's understanding of physical laws. I have a layman's understanding. As a consequence, some things that are magic to me may be nothing more than mechanisms to Al. Put another way, magic isn't magic to a magician. Which brings me to Geoff's reference to the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote about sufficiently advanced technologies being indistinguishable from magic. The essence of that insight is identical to the observation that one man's magic is another man's mechanism. Which brings me back to magic in audio. No doubt there are some observable effects that are unexplainable to me but are explainable to experts. But there are other observable effects that are unexplainable EVEN TO EXPERTS. And that is why I call it Magic. Bryon |
Wasnt that song by the Loving Spoonful.Yes it was! John Sebastian, to whom I referred earlier, was their lead singer, and the composer of the song. Do You Believe In Magic? Great song, IMO. Regards, -- Al |
Mr Tennis I can't speak for the OP but it seems clear to me that "Magic" is being used in lieu of a clear understanding as to what is going on to cause the sonic change. Based on his thoughtful comments and quest for understanding the "why" of it all I doubt it was meant in any literal sense. The key statement in his opening is "known physicals laws". Of course there is a reason that things happen in audio and other disiplines that often seem contrary to logic nor can be explained by current measurement parameters but what is it, real or perceived? It happens all the time in this hobby and who really believes it's magic? You can only believe what your ears tell you. |
no one has defined magic. until this happens, non-elctronic tratments may have a rational basis and an objective explanation. pulling a rabbit out of a hat or other activities of a magician may be perceived as magic but upon analysis, it;s usually a matter of the hand is quicker than the eye. i suppose in audio "things", which seem on the surface have no reason to have an effect upon the sound of a stereo system, might be construed as magic. however, in many cases the initial attitude is based upon a lack of understanding of how something might function. some product either is perceived as having an audible effect or is perceived as not having an audible effect. i doubt magic is the apt word to use to describe such a product. some products can be analysed as to their potential affects upon sound , but those which cannot be explained to have some sonic affect, still may be perceived as having one. in naby cases it's the placebo effect. |
Thank you for clarifying, Elizabeth. FWIW, my own personal history of skepticism about what I've been playfully referring to as 'magic' is counterbalanced by my willingness to try nearly anything. Among the "magical" devices in my current system are tweaks from Shunyata, Synergistic Research, Gingko, Bright Star, Mapleshade, Black Diamond Racing, and now Stillpoints. Collectively, this adds up to a sizable investment in equipment that, quite frankly, I'm not exactly sure what it does. I know very well what THE MANUFACTURER says it does. But that is something else entirely. You may wonder why I would keep this stuff if I'm uncertain about what it does. The answer is that I'm irrational. "What if you sell it and lose something critical to sound quality?" my irrational mind says. "Okay," I tell it, "we can keep it." Then my irrational mind goes to sleep and I'm left there wondering why I've spent thousands of dollars on Magic. Bryon |
| Post removed |
A much more likely explanation, I would think, is that low level broadband noise (i.e., hiss) in the upper treble region is being reduced, and that is being subjectively perceived as a diminution of the highs. I've heard about this from several sources also. One problem I have with this is the fact I can still hear this hiss in the music I transferred to a CD. With this same music on the CD, it seems to have lost the those high frequencies, some of us refer to as air. Possibly, there may be a higher frequency hiss that we don't actually perceive, but may be there on analog, and cut off by the filter in the D/A converter. |
Others (in posts such as this) then proceeded to slam him as a quack. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying here, Elizabeth, but you appear to be referring to my post initiating this thread. If so, I'd like to point out something that I thought was self evident... My post was ironic. If you read my comments throughout the rest of the thread, you will see that the only person I'm "slamming" is myself. Bryon |
| Post removed |
I used a liberal amount of ERS fabric, and I didn't notice a diminishment of high frequencies. That could be because of where I placed it, or if your hypothesis is correct, it could be because it merely removed some high frequency hiss. I agree with your observation that some audiophiles perceive high frequency hiss as "air" or ambience. Personally, I tend to perceive it as noise. In fact, with the ERS fabric installed, I can say that there is simultaneously LESS hiss and MORE ambience. bc |
You're welcome, Bryon! Glad I was helpful. Among the stranger things commonly reported about ERS fabric is that using too much of it tends to diminish high frequencies, as Chad described in this thread. That is puzzling to me. Could it be that using too much ERS fabric somehow affects certain circuits in the way that high capacitance interconnects can act as a low pass filter?I suppose it's conceivable that the presence of the material could affect the amount of stray capacitance that exists between various circuit points. But I would expect the sonic effects of that, if any, to be highly inconsistent among different components, and among different positionings of the material. A much more likely explanation, I would think, is that low level broadband noise (i.e., hiss) in the upper treble region is being reduced, and that is being subjectively perceived as a diminution of the highs. I've seen it stated in a number of articles that I've read in the past that low level high frequency hiss tends to be subjectively perceived as "air" and ambience. Which would seem to make sense. That reduction in high frequency low level noise could conceivably occur either in digital circuitry, via effects on the amplitude or spectral characteristics of jitter, or in analog circuitry, via effects on the amount of noise that is directly coupled into the signal path. That's my speculation, anyway. Best, -- Al |
That all makes sense, Al. Still, I feel like there's still a touch of Magic in it, in the sense I stated in the OP. Among the stranger things commonly reported about ERS fabric is that using too much of it tends to diminish high frequencies, as Chad described in this thread. That is puzzling to me. Could it be that using too much ERS fabric somehow affects certain circuits in the way that high capacitance interconnects can act as a low pass filter? And something else you said struck me: ...the only digital circuit points that would be susceptible to rfi-related noise are those at which jitter might be an issue. Eureka! THAT explains my experience with ERS fabric. The two changes I reported in the OP were... --the decay of notes --instrument timbres ...both of which I associate with jitter. That association is a result of my experience adding a reclocker to my system. The raison d'être of the reclocker is to reduce jitter. Adding the reclocker provided me with an impression of what jitter sounds like, or more importantly, WHAT THE REDUCTION OF JITTER SOUNDS LIKE... It sounds like what I heard after installing the ERS fabric. This explanation is consistent with my placement of the fabric: 1. preamp power supply 2. reclocker (with an Audiocom Superclock 4) 3. preamp master clock (another Audiocom Superclock 4) #2 and #3 are both digital circuits where the amount of jitter has a significant effect on sound quality. I think I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that the ERS fabric is helping to reduce jitter. Thank you, Al, for leading me to this realization. I still don't know whether Magic exists, but I am more confident that the changes I heard exist in my listening room and not in my mind. bc |
How is it that SO LITTLE conductive material can have a perceptible effect on sound quality? Am I wrong in my assumption that diffusion/reflection/absorption of EMI/RFI typically requires something more substantial?Hi Bryon, That's a good question, and I would think the answer is that it is only a small subset of the digital and analog circuit points in the components that need to be protected from the effects of rfi. Assuming reasonably good design, the only digital circuit points that would be susceptible to rfi-related noise are those at which jitter might be an issue. That might be a small handful of circuit points, or even fewer. And only a few kinds of analog circuit points are likely to be susceptible, such as what are known as "summing junctions" that are within wideband feedback loops. So judicious placement of the material near those points, or near sources of rfi that could affect those points, would presumably be sufficient to make a difference. I note that the Stillpoints web page on the ERS material states that "effectiveness will be maximized when placed internally near either EMI/RFI generating or EMI/RFI susceptible circuitry within the enclosure." Best, -- Al |
Wow, Al. Stillpoints should hire you to write copy! :-) Seriously, thank you for your thoughtful answer. You are great at putting things in terms that folks like me can understand. I know that your explanations are partly speculative, but acknowledging that, there is still something that puzzles me... How is it that SO LITTLE conductive material can have a perceptible effect on sound quality? Am I wrong in my assumption that diffusion/reflection/absorption of EMI/RFI typically requires something more substantial? bc |
Can you conjure an explanation for how this Magic Cloth works?Hi Bryon, Electromagnetic field theory has never been a strong point of mine, but Ill give it a try. The core of the material consists of interwoven strands of conductive material. Placing any conductive surface in the path of radiated electromagnetic energy will perturb and alter that electromagnetic field, to some degree. I would draw a parallel with placing a physical object in an acoustic field. Some of the sound energy will reflect off of the object back toward the source. The path of some of the energy will also, to some degree, be diverted and spread around (diffused). Some minimal amount of that energy will also be absorbed and dissipated in the material, as a result of vibration that is induced. The degree to which those effects occur will depend in part on the relation between the size of the object and the wavelengths of the spectral components of the sound (wavelength being inversely proportional to frequency). Similarly, placing a conductive surface in the path of radiated electromagnetic energy will result in some amount of the energy being reflected back toward the source. That is the underlying principle of radar. The path of some of the energy will also be altered and diffused. Some small degree of energy dissipation (absorption) will also result, related I believe to the displacement of charge carriers (e.g., electrons) along the conductive surface, that displacement being induced by the electromagnetic field. I suspect that the point to the braided construction is mainly to provide flexibility and to thereby facilitate physical placement in various configurations. It is probably also reasonable to view the material as functioning in a manner that is similar to a shield, except that the energy that strikes the material is not being shunted to a meaningful ground. Its path is being diverted instead, for the most part (I suspect that the diffusion and reflection effects are more significant than the absorption effect). Or something like that :-) In any event, their reference to reflection, diffusion, and absorption effects intuitively strikes me as not being the kind of implausible marketing pseudo-science that is often seen in tweak-related literature. Which is not to say that it will necessarily be beneficial in any given application. Best, --Al |
01-22-12: Tmsorosk I agree with this. Although A/B testing has its place, long term unreflective listening is the most informative way to evaluate sound quality, IME. 01-22-12: Chadeffect The use of the word 'Magic' is of course ironic. I understand that ERS fabric is designed to, in the words of Stillpoints, "absorb, diffuse, and reflect EMI/RFI energy." What is puzzling to me is how ERS fabric accomplishes this, given its materials and design. Again, in the words of Stillpoints... "The core of ERS is made of a blend of carbon fibers of various lengths and sizes... these fibers are coated with metals, such as nickel." I am no EE, but how that design can absorb, diffuse, and reflect EMI/RFI energy is a mystery. Incidentally, according to Stillpoints... "ERS does not operate under the same principles as a shield." Just what principles it DOES operate under are left unspecified. I assume it's Magic principles. 01-22-12: Almarg Eminently reasonable words from an eminently reasonable man. You are an EE, Al. Can you conjure an explanation for how this Magic Cloth works? Bryon |
Possibly by minimizing RFI it lowers the noise floor which enables you to hear more deeply into the music? I've always wondered myself, what is going on here but I'm sure there is something that could be explained if we knew exactly what. I have been using ERS Fabric covering the small transformers and impedence converters in my amplifier, a Berning zh270 and a small piece on top of various components for years. I've also tried on top of the speakers to no effect at all. The things you notice are in my experience real but it is important to note as Chadeffect does, a little goes a long way. Judicious use can make a difference/improvement or can just as well not if taken too far. |
I honestly don't know if I'm a Believer or a Skeptic.Hi Bryon, That is a good thing, as I see it, because IMO the positions at both ends of the ideological spectrum are fundamentally flawed in numerous ways (that I wont belabor here), and go hand-in-hand with dogmatism and closed-mindedness. If I may make a somewhat presumptuous comment, your intellectual sincerity and open-mindedness are both refreshing and commendable. No, I do not believe in magic (although I do like the John Sebastian song :-)). But my background in electronic design (unrelated to audio) has taught me that many things can occur in a system that are subtle, counter-intuitive, and inherently unpredictable. Coupling of electrical noise between circuits that are ostensibly unrelated is a leading example. EMI/RFI effects are another example. While those kinds of effects can often be explained in a general sense, once the design has been implemented they can only be addressed by experimentation and trial-and-error. I dont see anything that is technically implausible, btw, in the experience you described with the particular tweak. Concerning the broader philosophical questions you raise, my feeling is that 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!! A technical understanding of how the elements of a system work and how they interact, and of the theory behind a specific tweak, if applied with a reasonably open mind, can help assure that perceived effects are being attributed to the correct variable, and to better distinguish between the plausible and the implausible, the reasonable and the outlandish, and between pointless overkill and the possibility of significant benefit. Rather than a believer or a skeptic, I guess you could call me a pragmatist with a technical background. Best, --Al |
Bryon, It isn't magic, all you did was put some shielding around your Pre. If you found an improvement, it just shows how badly designed your Pre is. Surely the designer should have made some effort to shield noisy or sensitive components? My experience of ERS cloth is a little goes a long way. It is very easy to kill high freq & dynamics with it. |
I doubt it's in your mind. If you listen to your system everyday as I do you can pick out even small improvement/changes. I'm a diehard skeptic but hearing is believing, believe it or not. The big test comes in the following days when you forgot about the tweak, and walk threw your music room and get stopped in your tracks , hearing something that wasn't there before, then recall making a change. |
