Do you believe in Magic?

Eve should have taken another bite of the apple so everything hence would be certain.

Byron, your statement is not entirely correct, IMO:

"As flawed as scientific inquiry is, it is the only widespread human endeavor in history devoted to the systematic detection of errors based on evidence."

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

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

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

A friend once told me "watch the magician's other hand!"

Thank you, Geoff, for demonstrating my point. I was using the Beetle in the Box as a repurposed analogy. I am very well aware of its original meaning -- as an argument against Internalist theories of meaning, what Wittgenstein called "private language." I wrote about this subject extensively in the course of my PhD. Because my analogy was unclear to you, I will say the same thing plainly...

You are an obscurantist. Like all obscurantists, you have no intention of making yourself understood. Here is an example, taken from your website Machina Dynamica, about your product the Clever Little Clock:

The time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made are out of synch with the time signals when the recording is played. Those Past Time signals are reproduced through the speakers along with the acoustic information and become entangled, integrated with Present Time signals the listener uses to time-sequence sounds and images in memory. The alien time signals from the past are perceived subconsciously by the listener as a threat, producing fear, anxiety and confusion: the fight-or-flight response inherited from his Prehistoric ancestors. That fear, anxiety and confusion reduce or distort the listener's hearing and visual acuity. The Clever Little Clock counteracts the perceived threat produced by the Past Time signals, improving the listener's hearing and vision acuity by disentangling, dis-integrating the Past Time signals from the Present Time signals in his subconscious mind.

This passage, and many more like it written by you, is an act of obscurantism. I suspect that not a single person other than you understands its meaning. It is possible that even you do not understand its meaning, because it has none.

As for the Beetle in the Box...

The box is empty.

Bryon

Byron c - It's not terribly surprising that you go on as such length on the explanation for the clock since in your OP you expressed disbelief in the explanation for the ERS paper which, relatively speaking, is child's play. I am going on a limb here, but I suspect your PhD is not in electronics, otherwise I doubt you'd be so skeptical of the EMI/RFI explanation for the ERS stuff. As I've already pointed out, there are many other "Magical" devices you might have picked on with greater success.

As for the clock your skepticism doesn't surprise me, your PhD notwithstanding. The explanation, of course, was not written to accomodate anyone's desire for a "satisfying" explanation, which is apparently what you're seeking.

My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle.

Sabai, you say, "based on empirical truth, not on scientific evidence." This is the weirdest thought I have ever heard. Good science revolves around empirical evidence. Occasionally, that evidence upsets the paradigm that has been developed based on other research over time. But yes, science is often wrong and only with time and further evidence moves forward.

I think your discussion of mercury in fillings was engineering not science.

Let's not forget brilliant pebbles, teleportation tweaks, and magic dots.

The very essence and lifeblood of a huckster.

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

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

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

03-12-12: Geoffkait
My box contains ideas. Apparently your box really does contain a beetle.

I will give you credit for one thing, Geoff. That was funny.

But that's where my praise stops. Throughout this thread, your responses all have the same quality of being NON-responses. They are a series of ambiguous remarks, elliptical arguments, rhetorical questions, non sequiturs, inside jokes, and so on. Talking with you is an Alice in Wonderland experience. That's not a compliment.

And that is why I say you are an obscurantist. As to whether you are also a huckster, as Audiofeil suggested, I don't have an opinion. A huckster deceives and is aware of his deception. I honestly don't know if that describes you. You may be a huckster, or you may be a True Believer. If you are a huckster, then this whole conversation has been Theater in service of promoting Machina Dynamica, and the joke is on me. If you are a True Believer, then your obscurantism isn't an act of deception but an act of...

I don't know how to complete that sentence. If you genuinely believe in the products you sell, why are you an obscurantist? There are a number of other manufacturers who contribute to Audiogon who are patently NOT obscurantists...

Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere
Bobby Palkovic of Merlin
Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio
Duke LeJeune of AudioKinesis

These manufacturers offer open and accessible information on a range of subjects within their expertise. When asked direct questions about the products they design, they do not hide behind the facile excuse that "You need a PhD in electrical engineering to understand my design." And for that matter, there are a number of regular Audiogon contributors who DO have PhD's in electrical engineering, and so far as I am aware, you do not provide THEM with substantive information about the products you design either.

That leaves me wondering, in the words of another philosopher...

Do you muddy the water, to make it seem deep?

Bryon

Byron C - So, a died in wool skeptic continues to post long, drawn out diatribes full of attacks, veiled attacks, straw man arguments and innuendo. Geez, make your posts a little less verbose and a shade more bitter and you'll be right up there with Audiofeil. But, seriously, don't you really think that some investigation on your part regarding these controversial tweaks would be in order? Investigation, that's something they still teach in graduate school, correct?

As another philosopher once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

>>As to whether you are also a huckster, as Audiofeil suggested, I don't have an opinion.<<

I kept an email from an exchange with said goobermeister in which he demeaned the entire Audiogon readership with some fairly blunt name calling and innuendo.

Those interested, feel free to contact me for a copy.

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

Sabai, there are substantial variation in the sciences in instrumentation as well as in being able to do experiments that give information on causality. Double blind testing, especially in audio, is an invalid methodology as the indicator is not accepted by many as a isomorphic counterpart to the variable of concern.

Yes, evidence typically improves as a science matures from anecdotal to experiments assessing causality.

Engineering applies known laws from science to doing or making things. When dentists and dental schools looked for filling for cavities science came to their aid with known properties of materials, as well as warnings about their dangers. Virtually all universities have colleges of sciences as well as others for engineering.

Audio is engineering but beyond what electrical engineering can tell us. There is limited science about quartz, but little question that it impacts what we hear for better, worse, or very little. Science cannot help us on this, probably because it is not a sexy area for scientists. Geoff operates in this gray area. To some degree, we all do. Were there good science on all aspects of music reproduction, there would be few successful companies and we would all have basically the same systems.

03-13-12: Geoffkait
Byron C - So, a died in wool skeptic continues to post long, drawn out diatribes full of attacks, veiled attacks, straw man arguments and innuendo. Geez, make your posts a little less verbose and a shade more bitter and you'll be right up there with Audiofeil.

Seems like I touched a nerve. This is a bizarre response to my last post, which was neither a diatribe nor an attack. It 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.

If you were to take a look at my posting history, you would see that I am not in the business of attacking other posters. And I seldom have this kind of direct confrontation, as I find the whole thing unpleasant. Audiofeil has already cornered the market on confrontation, anyway. He and I make unlikely allies, but the enemy of my enemy...

It's also worth pointing out, for those who've just tuned in to watch the final seconds of this train wreck, that I am not a dyed in the wool skeptic, as you suggest. The whole point of this thread, which I initiated, was to share experiences with tweaks that are difficult to explain but nevertheless EFFECTIVE. Does that sound like a dyed in the wool skeptic? On the contrary. And btw, it's "dyed in the wool," not "died in the wool." That's something they still teach in graduate school, since you were wondering.

Which brings me back to...

The nerve I touched. I suspect you're feeling cornered by my request to explain why it is you fail to provide substantive information about the products you design and sell, IF you genuinely believe in them. You apparently will not go anywhere near the vicinity of that question. That is revealing.

All in all, I would say that this absurd detour in what was otherwise a perfectly pleasant thread has run its course. My own personal opinion is that your behavior reflects very poorly on you and on Machina Dynamica. Perhaps you're starting to sense that, which is why, in your last post, you come out swinging.

But you brought this on yourself, Geoff.

Oh, and... "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy." Yawn.

Bryon (not Byron)

Byron c - no, you did not touch a nerve. I've become quite used to, you could say even a little entertained by, such confrontations, as you call them. But I have to admit I'm a little confused by your comment, which seem to be your Big Gripe, that I don't explain my products. I actually have explanations for all of them with a couple of exceptions. So, it's actually you who has come out swinging before doing due diligence. By the way, your continued use of strawman arguments, (such as my lack of explanations), personal attacks and innuendo is duly noted.

Bryon, Sorry about my typo error for your name.

as i have often stated, the placebo effect is alive and well.

what may seem to be a product which will have no impact upon the sound of a stereo system, may be perceived as having a positive impact by some people. others may say it makes no difference.

so the answer is the free market, and caveat emptor.

let the market decide whether a product has value. if enough people buy it and claim that they like what it does so be it.

if a product is bought and returned, or is reported to have no effect, the word will get out and eventually, sales will cease.

this means that its more a matter of economics than belief in magic that will determine the success of a product.

eventually, the emperor's new clothes will be perceived.

let people produce what they want, make claims, and let consumers decide what works and what doesn't.

have an open mind , and let products succeed or fail based upon results.

the points raised have merit, but the time spent on this subject, or what would seem to be products which won't work, is overdone.

Mrtennis, while nobody would say there is no such thing as the placebo effect, the placebo effect does not explain away all tweaks, or even all outlandish tweaks. The problem is that some of these tweaks are so preposterous, so devilish, nobody would ever expect them to work. I.e., you "know" you've been given a placebo. Especially a dyed in the wool skeptic. So, when the ridiculous thing appears to work, there must be some other explanation.

Mrtennis, what you call the " placebo effect" works both ways. I you don't want to hear a benefit, you won't. Also you know that it is so powerful that people actually get benefit from placebos.

I also think the effects are binary. Some tweaks have great effect and some much less. Again this is a cost/benefit decision by buyers.

I still totally agree with your conclusion, "have an open mind , and let products succeed or fail based upon results."

Hey Bryon, don't be yawnin' at my boy Hamlet now...

if, however, the yawn was for Geoff, then I concur.

03-14-12: Geoffkait
...I'm a little confused by your comment, which seem to be your Big Gripe, that I don't explain my products. I actually have explanations for all of them with a couple of exceptions. So, it's actually you who has come out swinging before doing due diligence.

Your suggestion to do some due diligence sounded like a good idea. So I did just that.

About your product the "Super Intelligent Chip," you say...

Machina Dynamica's latest product is The Super intelligent Chip - the third and latest version of the Intelligent Chip, a small adhesive-backed silver disc that is attached to the surface of the lower portion of the CD tray used for Mini Discs. This placement allows the Super Intelligent Chip to be inserted inside the player along with the CD to be treated. The CD to be treated is allowed to play for about 1-2 seconds. The CD will then be permanently upgraded and will sound much more open, detailed and dynamic, with no distortion - better than a remastered version!

Here is your explanation of how it works...

In the case of the original Intelligent Chip, CD laser light escapes the player through a number of small holes and narrow gaps in the CD player case. The emitted photons from chip commingle with the CD laser light that is everywhere in the room and inside the player; the commingled light resonates with the CD's polycarbonate material, improving its optical performance. In the case of The Super Intelligent Chip, the process occurs entirely inside the CD player where all the interactions are more intense.

I would invite you to consider that explaining how a product works in terms of "commingled photon resonance" isn't an explanation to 99% of your potential customers, even the physicists among them.

Using terms like 'photon' seems to suggest that you intend your explanation to fall within the purview of scientifically valid explanations. I happen to know something about scientific explanations, having spent years researching and publishing on intertheoretic relations and reductionism in science. Generally I'm not a fan of exchanging résumés, but I would like to head off the charge that I'm simply making up the following...

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.

Where does your explanation in terms of "commingled photon resonance" fit in? If the answer is that it is a nomological explanation, then what are the underlying LAWS responsible for the effect of the Super Intelligent Chip? If you do not have an answer to that question, then your "explanation" is not an explanation, or at least not a scientifically valid explanation, as your terminology invites the potential customer to believe.

About your product "Codename Blue Meanies," you say...

Machina Dynamica's latest product, Codename Blue Meanies, is a set of 4 adhesive-backed 3/4" blue dots that are attached to the walls of the listening room, one dot per wall...

The Blue Meanie is neither a damper nor a resonator so it's location on the wall, unlike dampers and resonators, is not critical whatsoever. A Blue Meanie can be placed anywhere on the wall; it can even be hidden behind a picture or bookcase...

Here's your explanation of how they work...

Codename Blue Meanies operates via mind matter-interaction. The subconscious mind interacts with room boundaries, i.e., closed-in spaces, producing a claustrophobic reaction that interferes with and degrades the listener's sensory perception.

Several of your explanations involve "mind/matter interaction," as you call it. "Mind/matter interaction" is the purview of the Cognitive Sciences, which happens to be my other area of interest. I spent years researching and publishing on the neural correlates of conscious experience. I cannot think of a single scientific theory, experiment, or conjecture that substantiates the "degradation of sense perception" attributable to a "claustrophobic reaction" caused by the "subconscious interaction of the mind with room boundaries." Perhaps you could direct me to a article.

About your product "Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak," you say...

Machina Dynamica's latest product, Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak, reduces distortion, reveals more ambient information, increases palpability and air and improves overall realism. The Frog Jump in Water Sound Room Acoustics Tweak entails the placement of 4 small plastic containers filled with ordinary water in strategic locations...

And here is your explanation...

"...................................."

You don't give one.

About your "Tru-Tone Duplex Covers"...

Machina Dynamica's Tru-Tone Duplex Covers are special audiophile-grade covers for all duplex wall outlets; they are intended to replace all types of duplex covers - steel, plastic, wood, etc. - in the listening room -- including non-audio outlets and unused outlets. While one or two Tru-Tone Covers can make a significant improvement to the sound, 3-4 Duplex Covers in the room can yield tremendous results. Tru-Tone Duplex Covers produce a remarkable degree of focus, fullness, detail and presence.

IMPORTANT NOTE: When installing the Tru-Tone Duplex Cover, the screw should be loosened 1 to 1 1/2 turns from the point when it is nearly tight; never overtighten.

Again, no explanation.

About your "Quantum Temple Bell"...

The Quantum Temple Bell is an extensively treated Feng Shui Tibetan hand bell that improves audio and video quality when it is rung in "strategic locations" around the room; these strategic locations are identified in our instructions for the bell. The bell operates by mind-matter interaction as opposed to affecting acoustic waves in the room. The bell ringing procedure takes about 2 minutes. Further improvements can be obtained by repeating the procedure in all rooms of the house.

The system does not have to be ON during the bell ringing procedure since the Bell's operation is independent of the system. The effects of the Quantum Temple Bell are long lasting and the Bell ringing can be performed once a month to maintain performance.

No explanation, other than the vague and cryptic "mind-matter interaction."

About your "Teleportation Tweak"...

The Teleportation Tweak is independent of distance and will work anywhere in the world you happen to be located. We have performed The Teleportation Tweak many times for distances between 1000 and 4000 miles, even for distances greater than 10,000 miles. The Teleportation Tweak works equally well using your landline phone or cell phone.

The Teleportation Tweak has a profound effect on the sound and video picture: (1) Clearer, (2) More information, (3) Greater frequency extension and (4) Lower distortion. The Teleportation Tweak is obtained during a phone call to Machina Dynamica from your landline phone or cell phone; you can make the call from any room in your house. The audio or video system does not have to be ON at the time the call is made. The tweak itself takes about 20 seconds and will sound like a series of mechanical pulses.

This one not only doesn't have an explanation, it doesn't have a DESCRIPTION. About this, you say...

The operational details of the Teleportation Tweak are the proprietary property of Machina Dynamica.

Proprietary property? No wonder you don't explain it.

You see where this is going. If you don't, everyone else does.

I hope that clears up the confusion you expressed.

Bryon

Hi Learsfool - The yawn was most certainly not for your boy, H.

:-)

bc

Bryon C - since most of your angst seems to be directed at the Intelligent Chip, I will respond to your request for underlying Laws involved in how the chip works, which can be found in my definitive explanation at:

Www.machinadynamica.com/machina64.htm

Cheers

As you pointed out, there is no explanation provided for some (many) of my products - that's because I don't know the mechanism of operation, or I haven't sat down to write one up, or because I do not wish to divulge the specifics of how the product works.

You failed to mention there ARE detailed explanations for my vibration isolation stands, Brilliant Pebbles, Mr. clock and Codename Turquoise.

i think all of the points and counterpoints about certain products is totally unnecessary.

let the consumer decide if a product has any value. expressing opinions about them which are not based upon knowledge, as in mathematics and logic, do not accomplish anything, except to create heat and not light.

if a product sounds like it won't do any good, don't buy it. if demand heads towards zero, the product will cease to exist.

if someone is curious and buys the product with a trial period the only thing lost is time.

the manufacturer is under no obligation to explain the rationale for his product, as negative feedback will eventually cause its demise. there have been many failures and successful products over the years. let capitalism work.

Bryon, I agree with one of your earlier comments: they should just say “we don’t know why it works, but it does.” And then offer a money back guarantee.

If you don’t take them seriously, the explanations for these “tweaks” are comic:

The time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made are out of synch with the time signals when the recording is played. [Etc.]

As someone with more than a passing familiarity with physics, I can assure you that the entire premise of this gizmo is utter nonsense. If someone could demonstrate, let alone actually interact with, “time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made” that person would not only win the Nobel Prize, they’d utterly revolutionize physics, technology, and our understanding of the universe.

… The emitted photons from chip commingle with the CD laser light that is everywhere in the room and inside the player; the commingled light resonates with the CD's polycarbonate material, improving its optical performance. […]

Funny, since the data on a CD can be reliably extracted and reproduced – without error – as many times as you want to run it through your computer’s CD drive. So what does the gizmo do? Make the data better?

The other explanations, when provided, are equally absurd. I think it’s worth considering that the entire Machina Dynamica web site is an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by a prankster at the expense of the audiophile community. Maybe Geoff is just yanking your chain.

Geoffkat writes:

Mrtennis, while nobody would say there is no such thing as the placebo effect, the placebo effect does not explain away all tweaks, or even all outlandish tweaks. The problem is that some of these tweaks are so preposterous, so devilish, nobody would ever expect them to work. I.e., you "know" you've been given a placebo. Especially a dyed in the wool skeptic. So, when the ridiculous thing appears to work, there must be some other explanation.

This is simply untrue. The placebo effect can work even when the “patient” knows they are receiving a placebo. In addition, there are other cognitive effects that continue to work even when you are aware of them. The McGurk effect is particularly interesting: your ears tell you something based upon what your eyes are seeing. Our senses are not completely independent of one another. And we haven’t even touched on the emotional aspect of the equation.

Sabai writes:

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

Sabai, I think you have a fundamental misperception of what science is. Science provides structure for investigation. Cooking the books is an act of fraud. People may commit fraud in many areas of human endeavor (as this thread perhaps demonstrates), but that doesn’t mean all of those endeavors are corrupt. The reproducibility of results is a cornerstone of science. If someone commits fraud (or is simply mistaken), the PROCESS of science (because science is a process, not a result) will eventually rectify the situation.

Activities that don’t leave “books” behind that are far more susceptible to fraud, or simple misattribution of results, than those that do. Magic herbs or gizmos that have never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny can claim they do anything, and there is no effective way to evaluate those claims. The “empirical method” used without scientific rigor is simply witchcraft. Or maybe magic…

Cbw723,

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

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

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

I think it would be useful to recall how we got here. I started this thread to discuss tweaks that are effective but difficult to explain. I ironically called it ‘Magic.’ With a few exceptions, people seemed to get it.

My choice of ERS as an example of Magic was simply because I had just installed it, and I was puzzled with the result. I expressed that puzzlement and with the help of Al and a few others, we began to speculate about what might be behind the Magic of ERS. Things were proceeding in a very collegial way.

Then you came along, Geoff, with comments that were simultaneously provocative and obscure. I pointed out the inscrutability of your comments at least three times…

03-05-12: Bryoncunningham
I have to admit, Geoff, I don't understand your comment.

03-08-12: Bryoncunningham
[Your] comment does not reduce the ambiguity of your first remark. It intensifies it.

03-09-12: Bryoncunningham
I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to?

You ignored these repeated requests to speak plainly. Finally I gave up and I said you were an obscurantist. I wasn't the only person who felt that way...

03-13-12: Sabai
Geoff, I note that you completely sidestepped the content of Bryon's comments by diverting the discussion to ERS paper and by indulging in other polemical digressions. Frankly, I thought Bryon's comments about your statements being obscurantist were spot on.

As an illustration of your obscurantism, I quoted material from the Machina Dynamica website. I asked you why you do not offer open and accessible explanations of the products you sell, and again you completely ignored the question. Instead you did some misdirection by characterizing me as a “dyed in the wool skeptic,” as though my comments about your obscurantism were motivated by ideological skepticism, which they are most certainly not. You’ve repeatedly accused me of strawman-ing you, but your characterization of me as a close-minded skeptic is a transparent case of strawman-ing. Here’s what other folks said on that subject…

01-22-12: Almarg
Bryon… If I may make a somewhat presumptuous comment, your intellectual sincerity and open-mindedness are both refreshing and commendable.

01-23-12: Tubegroover
Based on his thoughtful comments and quest for understanding the "why" of it all I doubt [Magic] was meant in any literal sense.

01-25-12: Frogman
Very interesting exchanges here. Thanks Bryon, and I commend
your open-mindedness.

01-25-12: Nonoise
One has to keep an open mind and Bryon and Al do so in such a refreshingly open manner.

Enough said.

The upshot of all this is that I don’t care one whit about Machina Dynamica. It became the focus of this thread only because it demonstrates your tendency toward obscurantism.

As to whether you are a huckster, a fraud, or a misunderstood genius, I have an opinion, but that isn’t the point. Or at least it isn’t MY point. My point is that, if you would like to have a constructive conversation with fellow audiophiles, you should take a hard look at the way you engage them.

Bryon

Well, actually it didn't quite happen the way you say it did.

In your own words you were being confrontational and I responded. You used veiled insults and innuendo, and continue to do so. You accused me of having no explanations for my products, and when I provided the explanations you whined about the explanations not being "satisfying" - whatever that's supposed to mean. Most recently, after I pointed out your continued lack of due diligence regarding explanations for my products, in particular the Intelligent Chip, rather than respond in a reasonable, logical way, you come out with yet another diatribe. What was that term you used, close minded?.....hmmmmm.

03-15-12: Cbw723
Science provides structure for investigation. Cooking the books is an act of fraud. People may commit fraud in many areas of human endeavor (as this thread perhaps demonstrates), but that doesn’t mean all of those endeavors are corrupt. The reproducibility of results is a cornerstone of science. If someone commits fraud (or is simply mistaken), the PROCESS of science (because science is a process, not a result) will eventually rectify the situation.

I agree with this. Virtually any human activity is subject to corruption. The fact that SOME scientific research has been found to be corrupt does not invalidate science as an enterprise. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I also agree with Cbw that science should be understood not merely as a collection of theories, methods, data, and experiments, but as a PROCESS. Among other things, the process of science is...

1. Evidence based
2. Public
3. Self correcting

RE: 1. That science is based on evidence is obvious. What is somewhat less obvious is that what COUNTS as evidence is largely determined by the scientific paradigms that guide the acquisition and analysis of data. That is relevant to this thread, since there seems to be some disagreement about what should count as "evidence."

RE: 2. Calling science 'public' is another way of saying what Cbw said about the reproducibility of results. If there is one standard common to all scientific evidence, it is that evidence must be public. Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box metaphor was a repudiation of what he called "private language," but it could be repurposed as a repudiation of "private evidence." Unlike some other human activities, science makes NO room for private evidence. That also seems relevant to this thread, insofar as some of the "evidence" we have seen has been private, either metaphorically or literally.

RE: 3. Science is self correcting. This may be the most unique feature of science. Scientists spend a good fraction of their time trying to DISPROVE the theories of other scientists. This is crucial to the progress of science, because it means that, eventually, false theories will be detected and corrected. Even though there is no way to be certain that a particular scientific theory is true, there are many ways to know that a scientific theory is FALSE. And that alone is sufficient to ensure scientific progress.

Taken together, these three characteristics are unique to science. There are certainly other activities that are evidence based (e.g., legal trials), other activities that are public in the sense of contingent upon reproducibility (e.g., mathematical proofs), and other activities that are self correcting (e.g., architecture, in the sense of... if it falls down, don't build it that way again). But so far as I am aware, science is the only widespread human activity that is evidence based AND public AND self correcting.

And that brings me back to Magic. By definition, Magic is not evidence based. Nor is Magic is public, since Magical effects often fail the test of reproducibility. And the market of Magical products is not self correcting -- notoriously so. Magic is about as far from science as you can get.

But that doesn't mean it isn't real. Magic pops up from time to time, whether you want it to or not. When Magical effects get explained, they cease to be Magic. When they don't, you get threads like this one.

Bryon

hi geoffkait:

why do tou feel you have to justify your products ? just put them out there, and let people buy or not buy them.

no explanations are needed.

i think your mistake is to be defensive

you would be better off saying nothing.

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. I haven't had that good of a laugh in some time. This is coming from someone that believes in cables, tweeks, etc. and has a strong background in science.

Csmgolf, if you don't mind too much I'm going to quote you from a thread discussing cables on Agon last year. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"...listen for yourself. That is the only way. Assuming that we know how to measure everything that the human hearing mechanism can distinguish is incredibly arrogant. Fortunately, at one time, someone proved that the world is not flat. All of the scientists and people who knew beyond any doubt otherwise, thought him a fool for holding such beliefs without ever investigating themselves. Again, listen for yourself. It can be done with little to no investment other than time and an open mind."

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

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

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

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

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.

03-15-12: Cbw723
Bryon, I agree with one of your earlier comments: they should just say “we don’t 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

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

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.

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

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: 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

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.

You're insulting Barnum by mentioning him in the same sentence as the goobermeister.

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

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.

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?

Sabai, I was not referring to Bybee.

Learn to read and then criticize.

Thank you