Do you believe in Magic?

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.

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.

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