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. |
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. |
i think that i have found a concise definition of magic:
any phenomenon for which there is no rational explanation.
i reserve judgment of the effectiveness of a tweak after i have experienced it several times, because the placebo effect is alive and well. |
hi frogman:
you quoted geoffkait regarding knowledge not being absolute.
in matematics and other tautological endeavors knowledge is absolute. knowledge must be true and a certain, and be subject to proof.
if you know something it must be true and you must be certain about it and be able to peove it, else, there is a probability that what is claimed as knowledge is false.
in all things abstract knowledge is an absolute.
in the empirical world, information is acquired by the method of induction.
the information so acquired cannot be known absolutely, because there is always the exception which has yet to occur.
this is an argument of an epistemological nature.
i am a skeptic, and while i have confidence in the stimuli i perceive and make decisions based upon them, and may learn something new every day, i don't ever claim to know them, for knowledge cannot come from sense perception.
my skepticism could relate to the topic of magic , in that i may perceive something i cannot explain. such a case would indeed be magic. however, there is a chance i may make an error and hear something which does not exist. since i am not certain that i hear something but am confident of it, one is dealing with a stochastic process.
of course it follows that if i hear something, e.g., when i change a cable, i may not be able to explain why i hear it, or my explanations may be invalid. so, i do believe in magic, because of the unreliability of perception.
knowledge requires absolute proof.
knowledge pertains mainly to logic, mathematics and definitions |
i would like to add another point.
most explanations of why things work, or explanations as to the bases for changes in sound are hypothetical, because they cannot be proven absolutely.
again, in the world of audio, probability rules, not knowledge. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
hi geoffkait:
my advice to you is to keep quiet and ignore further challenges to your products. |
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. |
hi chadeffect:
i did not say what i believe in.
i said perception is unreliable and therefore the senses cannot yield knowledge. |
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. |
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. |
the original subject of this thread "magic", may be irrelevant, as one's perception of sound is influenced by unconscious bias or expectations. its a form of the placebo affect.
what i am saying is that explantions as to why one hears something may be inaccurate, as they discount our unconscious expectations of what we expect to hear. |
if you can't explain a phenomenon, is that a reason not to believe it ?
are there not some some instances where there is no scientific
explanation for an event ? yet such events are accepted as facts.
so too in audio, some treatment may be a catalyst for a change in the performance in the stereo system. if the treatment can be studied rigorously and through a rigorous experimental design results in statistical significance, it should be accepted, regardless of how outlandish it may seem. |
if you have confidence in your perceptions, there may be occasions where there is no rational explanation for what you hear. |
hi mapman:
there is a reason for all phenomena, but it may be unknown at the time. one is not omniscient. |
hi tbg:
i am an economist/psychologist in terms of education. i was an operations research analyst and computer consultant before i retired. i have an extensive background in mathematics and i took a logic course as well.
psychophysics underlies much of what wwe perceive and see.
sometimes it is impossible to provide an objective (measurement) component to explain what we hear. isthat a magical experience.
engineers can measure many things, but not evrything. so, measurement is not always correlated with perception. |
psychophysics is a discipline within the field of psychology.
its principles are applicable to detecting differences between the sound of components.
two terms to consider are adaptation level and differential threshold.
i'll try to be brief.
the differential threshold applies to detecting differences in spl, e.g. . how much of a change in spl is necessary to detect differences in loudness, varies from person to person.
adaptation level concerns the point at which the nervous system is no longer efficient, because neurons are firing more slowly, fatigue sets in and perception of differences suffers. there are actions to be taken to avoid reaching the adaptation level, otherwise, errors in judgment will occur.
i would prefer not to get too technical or sound like a lecturer.
i hope i have at least given an indication of the importance of these principles and anyone who sees value in their application should read about psychophysics in psychology text books. |
let me add two other caveats:
human beings are subject to two errors in perception, i.e., omission and commission.
sometimes we fail to hear what is on a recording and other times we ascribe information to a recording which is not there.
let me give an example which you can try yourself.
there is a cd "jazz at the pawn shop". one of the tracks is "lady be good". somewhere under one minute from the beginning of the track a telephone rings. the spl is much lower than the sound of the instruments.
my friend and i listened to the cd on two different stereo systems and could not hear the telephone. obviously, the ring tone is somewhere in the upper mids/lower treble.
a third person heard the ring. thus aural acuity varies among listeners.
another example is claiming to hear three guitars, and consulting the liner notes, finding out that there are only two guitarists.
there is an important lesson here. one should not consider the results of listening as knowledge , as sense perception is inherently unreliable. |
i suppose its a philosophical issue, namely that knowledge can not be derived from sense perception.
it is very easy to make a mistake and misidentify an instrument. there are many examples of recordings where that is so.
certainly our jury system provides many examples of the unreliability of witness accounts.
it's obvious that perception is unreliable. i can cite many other examples. i doubt anyone would allege perception is perfect.
again , in the field of psychophsics, the just noticeable difference for distances, loudness and frequency identification empirically demonstrates that our senses lack precision. |
