Do you believe in Magic?

03-08-12: Geoffkait
The limit of knowledge and understanding for whom? It's a little presumptuous to say we know all about science, or all about physics.

I honestly don't know what you're saying here. Who is the "we" you are referring to? Is your comment supposed to mean...

It is presumptuous of you, Bryon, to imply that you know all about science, or all about physics.

If so, I implied nothing of the kind. Quite the contrary.

Or does the "we" simply mean "people"? And hence your comment means...

People do not know everything there is to know about the universe. To presume otherwise is wrong.

If so, that was MY point.

And if we don't know the explanation for some Magical device, do we assume that someone out there, maybe at Harvard or MIT or NASA, must know?

Again, I don't know what you're saying here. Are you saying...

Even though YOU don't know a scientific explanation for a "Magical device," someone else might. For example, someone at Harvard, NASA, etc.

Or...

Even the people at Harvard, NASA, etc. might not know the scientific explanation for a "Magical device."

It would help if you would set aside rhetorical questions and cryptic remarks and simply state, in a declarative sentence, what you are attempting to express.

Bryon

If we accept the premise that most devices and tweaks operate in physical reality, I.e., they affect physical, electrical properties that directly or indirectly result in a better audio signal presented to the ears, then there must be a real, physical or electrical explanation for why you hear a change in the sound when evaluating a device or tweak. I also realize there is a class of audio devices and tweaks that are purported to operate on a different level - on our sensory perception of the sound.

In your OP, your attribution of Magic to the ERS paper might have been a bit premature, since the explanation provided by the manufacturer is EMI/RFI absorption, and experiences of many users including other manufacturers seems to bear this explanation out. So one can reasonably conclude that ERS paper is actually not a Magical device in the sense you were using the word.

Finally, I think it would be productive if there were an independent organization that could evaluate these mysterious products we're talking about and offer explanations as to how they work, especially the devices that fall in the second category - the ones that affect the listener's perception of the sound, not the electronic or acoustic signal.

The description is not the described. The perception may be explained in various ways. But it exists in its own realm outside the world of explanation -- whether valid, partially valid or invalid.

In our audio world, perception must take precedence. Otherwise audio becomes an intellectual exercise. We can listen to various aspects or parts of an audio experience and explain them in various ways, or listen to a whole piece and explain it in various ways. But it is the whole experience that is of primary importance. And the experience transcends the intellect. IMO.

03-09-12: Sabai
The description is not the described. The perception may be explained in various ways. But it exists in its own realm outside the world of explanation -- whether valid, partially valid or invalid.

I agree. There is the world and there are representations of it. Among those representations are scientific explanations. Among scientific explanations are explanations relevant to audiophiles.

Perhaps, Geoff, you also agree with Sabai. It's difficult to tell from this comment...

If we accept the premise that most devices and tweaks operate in physical reality, I.e., they affect physical, electrical properties that directly or indirectly result in a better audio signal presented to the ears, then there must be a real, physical or electrical explanation for why you hear a change in the sound when evaluating a device or tweak.

My comments about the limits of human knowledge weren't intended to imply that the limits are immutable. There may very well be immutable limits to human knowledge, but that isn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the PRESENT limits to human knowledge - the boundary between what is known and what is guessed. That boundary changes on a daily basis.

Moving on...

In your OP, your attribution of Magic to the ERS paper might have been a bit premature, since the explanation provided by the manufacturer is EMI/RFI absorption, and experiences of many users including other manufacturers seems to bear this explanation out. So one can reasonably conclude that ERS paper is actually not a Magical device in the sense you were using the word.

I am of course aware of the "explanation" offered on the Stillpoints website. But like many explanations for these kinds of things, it leaves a lot to be desired. Even if we were to agree that EMI/RFI diffusion/reflection/absorption is an adequate explanation for the PHYSICAL effects of ERS cloth, the question remains, how does EMI/RFI diffusion/reflection/absorption explain the AUDIBLE effects? About that question, Stillpoints is silent.

Al provided a good conjecture, IMO, about how addressing EMI/RFI might result in the audible effects reported by ERS users, including myself. He speculated that the minimization of RFI results in lower jitter. That may not be an exhaustive explanation, but it's a far cry better than the explanation offered by Stillpoints, because it provides a possible MECHANISM for the audible effects of ERS. Which brings me to...

In contrast to Magic, valid scientific explanations provide mechanisms. And causes. And laws. And predictions. And theories. And evidence. A scientific explanation isn't valid because it's intuitive, or plausible, or satisfying.

In the absence of mechanisms, causes, laws, etc., an explanation isn't worth much, other than the gratification some people derive from it. It's gratifying to believe that we know something, and humbling to acknowledge that we don't. That fundamental human shortcoming makes us overlook explanations that are, upon scrutiny, simply inadequate. It makes us vulnerable to deception, misinformation, and pseudo-explanation.

Bryon

I tend to think that anyone looking for "satisfying" explanations will probably be, uh, unsatisfied by the explanations provided for many of the less conventional audio tweaks and devices that have popped up over the last couple of decades. Let's see...how about silver rainbow foil, Tice Clock, Shakti Stone, Shun Mook mpingo disc, SteinMusic Harmonizer, Schumann Frequency Generator, the Green Pen, LP and CD demagnetizers, ionizers, the tiny little bowls from Tchang and Synergistic Research, liquid cables. Obviously, some of my devices should be on the list, too, including the Intelligent Chip.