Do you believe in Magic?


Audio Magic, that is.

Let's say that Magic is any effect not explainable by known physical laws. Every audiophile is familiar with debates about Audio Magic, as evidenced by endless threads about power cables.

I recently had an experience that made me question my long held skepticism about Magic. On a whim, I bought some Stillpoints ERS Fabric. I installed it in my preamp (which is filled with noisy digital circuitry) and a reclocker (also noisy) and...

Something happened. I don't know what exactly, but something. Two things in particular seemed to change... the decay of notes, and instrument timbres. Both changed for the better. But where did this change occur? In my listening room? Or in my mind?

If the change was in my listening room, then Magic exists. If the change was in my mind, then Magic does not exist.

One of the great Ideological Divides in audio is the divide between Believers and Skeptics. I honestly don't know if I'm a Believer or a Skeptic.

Do you believe in Magic?

Bryon
bryoncunningham
Audiofeil, I sent a sincere apology. You could have been gracious. Instead you have chosen to be spiteful -- and inaccurate. Pity.
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
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